Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet Greater Glasgow health board to discuss industrial relations between the board and health service employees.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet Greater Glasgow health board to discuss industrial relations between the board and health service employees.

Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister join me in condemning the way in which the board treated its employees at Glasgow royal infirmary—the porters and cleaners—by handing them over to the NHS trust at the royal infirmary, which then proceeded to cut the wages and conditions of the ancillary workers there? Does he accept that the way in which the trust behaved compounded the board's treatment of those ancillary workers? Where are we going with those trusts in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: The dispute to which the hon. Gentleman refers was, of course, one involving a private firm, and the wages and conditions of service between the employer and the employee. That is a matter for the employer and employee, although, naturally, I am gratified that the hon. Gentleman has such confidence in Scottish Office Ministers that he would like us to be directly and personally involved in such matters. In answer to his specific question, the Glasgow royal infirmary university trust decided to re-tender the contract to which he refers.

Mr. George Robertson: Are we not fast reaching a crisis over those NHS thrusts, and to whom precisely they are responsible? The events at Glasgow royal infirmary were bad enough and sordid enough, but we have also seen recent serious problems of buck passing at Raigmore hospital, Inverness, and Aberdeen children's hospital as well. Does the Minister not agree that, if those market-driven, wage-cutting, secrecy-obsessed trusts are not to shut off the NHS from the public that it is supposed to serve, the sooner they are back in the full health service structure the better that it will be for patients and public alike?

Mr. Stewart: I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Contrary to what he alleged, all 39 trusts in

Scotland are producing evidence of new initiatives that benefit patients: new services, more consultants, better facilities—all allowing trusts to treat more patients and provide health care that is better suited to patient needs. I could go on, but I will not do so. Why does not the hon. Gentleman get up to date with the realities?

Mr. Connarty: I wonder whether, when the Minister meets the Greater Glasgow health board, he will ensure that the same terrible practice does not happen in the Greater Glasgow area that happened in Forth Valley, where one of my constituents—a geriatric patient—found that there were no emergency bell cords to call for help when she fell, since they had all been removed from the ward? Will he ensure that that does not happen in Greater Glasgow health board, and ensure that he sacks Mrs. Isbister, chair of the Forth Valley health board, for allowing that to happen?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he writes to me, of course I will look into the matter. The general point that I am making is that if one looks at the record of health trusts in Scotland, it is a record of more patients than expected being treated, waiting list times coming down and new services being offered. That is the reality.

Scottish Homes

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet Scottish Homes to discuss its programme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I have regular meetings with the board of Scottish Homes, and last met the board on 11 March. I approved Scottish Homes' development programme for the current year on 28 February.

Mr. Martin: One of my constituents, Mrs. Howie of Dennistoun, had the good fortune to be told by a rent officer that her rent would not be raised above £115. The Milnbank housing association took the matter to court, and a sheriff found in favour of the rent officer and Mrs. Howie. I have been informed that the housing association is now asking Scottish Homes to pay 100 per cent. of the legal fees and the cost of any subsequent appeals, that it is trying to take the case to the Court of Session, and that other housing associations have had a whip round to raise money to fight Mrs. Howie.
Why should a tenant have to fight against such terrible odds? Will the Minister call on Scottish Homes not to finance the project, given that the sheriff found in Mrs. Howie's favour?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The intention of the original legislation was to preserve the rights of secure association tenants: that was absolutely clear when the Bill that became the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 was going through Parliament. I am therefore surprised and disappointed that the housing association has seen fit to appeal against the sheriff's judgment, which confirms the position. I should certainly be unhappy if further public funds were spent on the case, and I hope that it will be resolved quickly.
I have followed up the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised at our last Scottish Question Time. Progress is being


made on the various developments that he mentioned in Royston road, Dennistoun and Blackhall: the matter is in hand.

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister acknowledge that he is responsible for levels of homelessness, overcrowding and bad housing that can only be described as a full-blown housing crisis? Will he further acknowledge that the only way in which to address the problem is to make more houses available to let at fair rents and with secure leases? Will he now instruct Scottish Homes to help Scottish local authorities to get on with that job?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect: statutory responsibility for homelessness resides, quite properly, with local authorities. Scottish Homes is giving priority to dealing with homelessness, and local authorities have nomination rights with housing associations. As I have said, the intention of the legislation was to preserve the rights of secure tenants under the law. That has been made absolutely clear.

Lockerbie

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) of 27 April, Official Report, columns 227–28, that he has not seen any evidence that would cause him not to proceed with the criminal charges that have already been brought in respect of the Lockerbie bombing, what account the Lord Advocate has taken of the statements by Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpart concerning crucial timing devices and the Stasi known to 10 Downing street and the Foreign Office.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has taken account of all evidence made available to him in respect of the Lockerbie bombing.

Mr. Dalyell: In that case the Lord Advocate cannot have taken account of all the evidence. Why does he not ask for Lumpart and Bollier to be interviewed by either the Crown Office or the police? Is the Crown Office not being a bit lazy?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman persists in setting himself up as some kind of amateur sleuth in this matter. The fact is that my noble and learned Friend has taken full account of all the evidence open to him, and nothing in the evidence that he has received has prompted him to consider any change in the charges that he wishes to make. I think that the hon. Gentleman should support him and the Government in seeking to enable the trial to take place.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Leading and respected Scottish advocates and lawyers have stated clearly and publicly that a fair trial before a Scottish jury is simply not possible because of recent press coverage. The Libyan Government have said that they would willingly send the two accused to any other country in the world. In view of those facts, does the Secretary of State agree that—in fairness to the relatives of the victims of this appalling disaster—it would be better for the Government to consider legislation for a trial in, for instance, The Hague, so that the truth of this

dreadful issue could at least emerge? That would be better than the present circumstances, in which nothing happens for years.

Mr. Lang: The investigation took place under Scots law, and the charges are being brought on that basis. There is no evidence to support the contention that the Libyan Government would be any more amenable to holding a trial in any other country, even if that were possible—and it would be extremely difficult in the circumstances.

Dr. Godman: Is not the truth that the case is unlikely to come to court? Without the evidence provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the issue would slip away from public attention. What is wrong with holding an ad hoc international tribunal, chaired by a Scots judge, in The Hague or some other mutually acceptable capital? Surely that is the way in which to enable the case to be prosecuted.

Mr. Lang: A Scottish court cannot sit abroad.Before it could do so, complex legislation would be required, no doubt in both countries. There is no evidence that the Libyans would be any more amenable to that course. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Crown Office does not intend to let the matter slip away, as he put it.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Day Care, Tayside

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the convenor of Tayside regional council to discuss the region's plans for day care facilities.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no present plans to meet the convenor of Tayside regional council to discuss day care facilities.

Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that discussions within Tayside health board on Meigle cottage hospital have been preliminary and informal? A transfer of that hospital's day care facilities, bearing in mind that it was given under special covenant and the special circumstances surrounding the endowment, would require a massive transfer of funds from the health board to Tayside region before any thought could be given to turning it into what it is alleged the discussions were supposed to have been about.

Mr. Stewart: From my hon. Friend's previous questions and his Adjournment debate on this matter, the House will know of his concern, as the constituency Member involved. It would be the board's intention to seek to recommemorate the Meigle site if and when it transfers to new community care use. I understand that he is correct to say that the discussions so far have been informal and preliminary.

Mr. McAllion: Why did the Minister, only this year, give Tayside regional council lead responsibility for care in the community, when he planned all along to abolish it in less than two years, thereby guaranteeing that the carefully devised Tayside-wide care in the community plan would have to be ripped up, and that the three single-tier councils would have to start all over again? Is it not true that the


needs of the most vulnerable people in Tayside are playing second fiddle to the gerrymandering requirements of carving out a few Tory seats in Angus and in Perth and Kinross?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman revisits debates that occupied the Committee that considered the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and the House for some considerable time. There is widespread popular support for single-tier unitary authorities in the city of Dundee, in Angus, represented by the Scottish National party, and in Perth. Tayside's grant-aided expenditure allocation for community care in 1994–95 is £14.2 million higher than in 1990–91. That is proof of the Government's commitment to improved community care on Tayside.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister accept that the compulsory competitive tendering that he loves so much means that successful tenders for day care and other personal services will come from firms that pay the lowest wages and have the fewest employees? Has he not learnt anything from recent events at Glasgow royal infirmary trust, where porters and cleaners, backed to the hilt by the Glasgow public, defeated the plan to cut their wages when the top brass awarded themselves fancy salaries? Does he think that the people of Tayside will tolerate what the Glasgow public did not?

Mr. Stewart: In relation to the hon. Lady's health service question, market testing has saved some £94 million pounds, which has all gone into patient care. I thought that Opposition Members were supposed to be concerned about patient care and its improvement, but it seems that that is not so.
In relation to her specific point about Tayside, we have received complaints from Tayside about inadequate consultation with the private and voluntary sectors on community care. I propose to issue a direction on purchasing, which I hope will ensure adequate consultation and the full involvement of public, private and voluntary sectors. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want that kind of partnership, but I believe that it is a sensible way forward for the future.

Drug Abuse

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to respond to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs' report on drug abuse in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We welcome the Select Committee's report, which brings a further valuable perspective to the problem of drug misuse in Scotland. Our response to the report will be published as soon as our careful consideration of its recommendations is complete.

Mr. Watson: The Minister will know that the Select Committee's report confirms the view already widely held in social work departments, drug projects and agencies, as well as by the parents of those who have died, that current reporting procedures seriously underestimate the number of drug-related deaths, not least in Glasgow, where fatal overdoses by drug injecters are now the largest single cause of death among young adults?
What assurances can the Minister give that, when he responds to the report, he will ensure that the Scottish Office improves the reporting procedures, especially those

governing the amount of information given on death certificates, so that accurate figures will be available on which to base future action?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, that is one of the matters that we are considering in great detail, and a full response will be forthcoming when we give our response to the Select Committee report. Our own task force is studying all such matters in great depth and will report in the summer, having taken fully into account all the Select Committee's recommendations. Correct reporting is extremely important.

Mr. Gallie: In assessing the Select Committee's report, will my hon. Friend take account of the recommendation for harsher treatment of drug peddlers, especially bearing in mind the outrage caused in my constituency and adjacent constituencies by the derisory sentence—simply community service—received by a youth convicted of selling drugs to 13 and 14-year-olds?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, we shall have to keep penalties carefully under review. Those who peddle drugs are in a much more serious position than those who are addicts, and the courts should treat them with according severity. We shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Mr. David Marshall: What does the Minister know about skunk? Will he give a guarantee that he will totally reject any proposal to legalise it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I did not hear the word that the hon. Gentleman used. Did he say scum?

Mr. David Marshall: Skunk.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is absolutely clear that we are totally against the decriminalisation of cannabis—[Laughter.] The material that the hon. Gentleman mentioned sounds to me as though it would come into an even worse category.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) lacked a sense of urgency. Will he pay special attention to the Scottish Affairs Committee's recommendation that the Scottish Office establish a permanent national committee to lead and co-ordinate the many agencies now in place? Unless we get a grip on the problem, more and more of our youngsters will be caught up in drug abuse and drug-related crime.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is one of the issues that the task force is currently considering. It is considering such issues as a matter of urgency, and it will report in the summer. We are spending about £40 million a year—on health education, social work and various forms of treatment, for example, as well as on policing. So considerable public funds are already allocated to that important problem. However, we shall bear in mind the point that the hon. Lady raised.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: When my right hon. and hon. Friends respond to the Select Committee's report, will they pay particular attention to the section on education? Does my hon. Friend agree that education on drug abuse must start in the primary schools, because leaving it to secondary schools is leaving it too late?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I entirely agree. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. We have introduced the Drugwise 2 package for schools, which has been successful, and not so long ago we held a conference advising schoolchildren of the dangers of taking drugs. That, too, was successful.

Community Care

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he has allocated to community care for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for developing this programme.

Mr. Stewart: In the current year, about £170 million has been made available to Scottish local authorities for the implementation of the community care policy—an increase of £88 million over the previous year.

Mrs. Ewing: Despite that figure, will the Minister explain why he believes that a community care policy is being evolved, when our elderly, our disadvantaged and our disabled are to be subjected to the added burden of VAT on domestic fuel? When we consider that against the background of the Government's failure to recognise the need for a carer's premium and their failure to recognise all aspects of care in the community, how can he say that there is a community care policy in place? Many people, especially those who are disadvantaged, do not believe that that is so. Exactly what does the Minister have in mind?

Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her ingenuity. However, she has failed to recognise the package of measures that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to assist the elderly and those on low incomes with VAT on fuel. On her more general point, the Government's objectives for care in the community are very clear and, indeed, in principle, they have very wide acceptance.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is not the Minister aware of the very great concern—indeed, resentment—in and around Aberdeen over the proposal by Grampian health care trust to close a number of hospitals on the ground that it is necessary under community care, when the trust itself concedes that there are no places in the community available? How on earth can that be justified, and why does not the Minister have a policy that insists that, before there is any mention of hospital closures, there are suitable places up and running and available in the community to take people who are discharged?

Mr. Stewart: Of course, there have to be available places in the community. No one can be discharged until there is a community care individual assessment by the key agencies on housing and on social and community needs. May I also point out to the hon. Gentleman the bridging finance that is available to assist that process, which totalled £60 million between 1991–92 and 1995–96? That is in addition to the figures to which I have already referred and in addition to the extra resources that Scottish Homes, for example, is using to play its part in the effective implementation of care in the community.

Government Spending

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the per capita Government spending in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: Identifiable general Government expenditure per head in Scotland in 1992–93 was £3,968.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that, for every pound of taxation collected in Scotland, the Scottish people receive £1.40 back? Does he agree that the Opposition are being less than honest with the people in Scotland in pretending that a devolved parliament would mean that they would not have to pay more taxes, because, indeed, they would? Does my right hon. Friend have any idea of the cost of a devolved parliament, or of the even wilder scheme, which I believe that the Liberal Democrats are proposing, to reintroduce the groat?

Mr. Lang: I cannot confirm the exact accuracy of my hon. Friend's figure, but the point that she makes about a separate Scottish parliament is absolutely right. Indeed, it is significant that, while we on this side of the House are reforming local government to introduce one tier, to diminish bureaucracy, to reduce duplication and to decentralise and strengthen local government, the Labour party is bent on creating another layer of bureaucracy through a Scottish parliament, which would centralise powers from local government in Scotland and massively add to the burden on the Scottish people.

Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland is well paid for? At the 1993 Budget, the assessment of revenues from Scotland was £77 billion from gas and oil? If one uses the gross domestic product deflator on prices, that would be equivalent to £128 billion in 1994.
Does the Secretary of State also agree that there are about 2,100 million tonnes of oil in reserve which could last for another 21 years?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an expert on the deflator; the Scottish National party would be proud of him. Revenue raised in Scotland is substantially less than public expenditure in Scotland. A separate Scotland would have a substantial public sector deficit. Scotland does well out of the existing arrangements and is increasingly prospering as a result.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whatever the sums paid by the English to the Scots, they must be put in the context of the long-standing and intimate historical association between the two peoples? That factor does not arise in respect of what the English or the British have to pay to the Greeks, the Portuguese or the Spaniards in the context of the European Union.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his strong support of the Union, to which all Conservative Members subscribe. I am also grateful to him for his robust approach to the future of the United Kingdom in the European Union, to which most of us subscribe as well.

Mr. McLeish: I, too, am grateful for Conservative Members' support of Scots in the House. After yesterday's pathetic Government statements on competitiveness and employment, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge


that there is great benefit to be gained from public investment in skills training, which will improve our competitiveness? Why, then, on the Government's own figures, do only 30 per cent. of the Scottish work force receive any form of job-related training? Is that not a scandal in the latter part of the 20th century? Does the Secretary of State want us to fall further behind in Britain in terms of job-related training? Is he content to see us as the poor man of Europe in terms of skills and the future of the economy? We have had enough of his complacency and I sincerely hope that he will now get to grips with the real problems facing the Scottish economy.

Mr. Lang: That is one of the most brazen questions that I have heard for a long time. The Government are spending substantially more than the Labour Government ever spent on training. As a result, the success level for qualifications in Scotland is substantially higher than it has ever been before and higher than it is south of the border. Scotland has enjoyed productivity gains of more than 5 per cent. per annum for most of the past decade. That is a higher rate of improved competitiveness than in any of the other the G7 countries and a measure of our commitment to training, improved efficiency and competitiveness in Scotland.

Forestry

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his future forestry policy.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government's forestry policy objectives are set out in the policy statement, "Forestry Policy for Great Britain", which we published in September 1991. "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", published in January this year, provides a comprehensive account of the action that we are taking to achieve those objectives.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is no part of his policy now to proceed to privatisation? What other options is he considering?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that a wide range of options have been looked at, of which privatisation was merely one. Ministers are currently developing their preferred options in the context of the forestry review group's advice. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement in due course. There will, of course, be consultation on the options preferred by Ministers before matters are taken forward. The form and timing of that will depend on the conclusions that Ministers reach.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on raising this question. I have raised very similar questions on three occasions and we have had the same kind of evasive answer from all three Ministers. We read in the press that the Government intend to scrap the privatisation proposals; yet Ministers say that they are looking at them. Many people in many parts of Scotland, especially in my constituency, are worried about their jobs. The Forestry Commission and forestry generally are important to the economy of Scotland; I emphasise that point. When will the Minister make a decision?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is in due course. We shall not be rushed in this matter. Full

consideration will be given to all the issues. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct—forestry is extremely important. The Forestry Commission's headquarters are in my constituency and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the commission is far and away the biggest landowner in Britain, with more than 1 million hectares in its ownership. The matter will receive full consideration,and a statement will be made in due course.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of forestry in my constituency of Kincardine and Deeside. Is he aware of the importance to my constituents of access to the forests for recreational purposes such as orienteering, hill walking and rambling? Can he give comfort to my constituents that in his review he will be not only looking at the good management of the forests but ensuring that there is continued good access for members of the public?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Access and environmental matters are two of the most important considerations being borne in mind by the review group. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, especially in view of the importance of access not only for residents but for tourists.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that the undue delay in the Government's making up their mind is having a damaging effect both on staff morale and on the timber-using industry? When is "shortly" or "in due course"? Can the Minister say whether it will be days or weeks? It certainly should not be any longer than that. Can he also give an undertaking that he will publish the report of the forestry review group in full so that we can see all the options made available to the Government by the review team and not just those selected for consultation by the Government?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. The advice was private and confidential. A full statement will be made in due course and the points made by hon. Members will be borne in mind.

Mr. McFall: Why will the Minister not be open with the House and tell us that the decision to establish a "next steps" agency for the Forestry Commission has already been taken? Can he confirm that Government-commissioned research has shown that the emphasis by such bodies on greater commercial freedom and less accountability will mean that areas such as Pannanich wood in Ballater, Deeside, and Kilpatrick hills and Loch Lomondside will be disposed of more quickly, resulting in less or no access to our hills and glens for hundreds of thousands of ramblers and hill walkers?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are no plans to abandon or postpone the disposals programme. With regard to the agency option, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am unable to confirm or deny any such speculation. He will have to wait until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes his full announcement.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with local government trade unions about employment conditions after local government reorganisation.

Mr. Lang: I have received no requests from local government trade unions for discussions about employment conditions after local government reorganisation.

Mr. McKelvey: If—God help us—the planned reorganisation of local government goes ahead will the Secretary of State make a commitment now that local government employees who have to transfer to a new authority or new employer will be guaranteed their conditions of pay, their pensions and their full rights under the European Union's acquired rights directive?

Mr. Lang: It is too soon to be specific about the detailed decisions that will be taken; they will be considered carefully and taken nearer the time. Nor is it possible to generalise about the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 or the acquired rights directive. Individual circumstances will vary.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the main savings that he was projecting for this gerrymandered reorganisation were to come from the sacking of staff currently employed by local councils? Will he now confirm what everyone else in the country knows is a fact—that European law, both the acquired rights directive and the TUPE regulations, will mean that he simply will not be able to sack staff across Scotland on a wholesale basis? Does that not mean that the Government's promises on the costs and savings from local government reorganisation are as bogus as their promises on value added tax at the last election, and that the taxpayers of Scotland will have to pick up the £700 million price tag for a reorganisation that is both unnecessary and completely unwanted?

Mr. Lang: It is the hon. Gentleman's question that is bogus. What he still refuses to acknowledge, although even he must understand it, is that costs and savings are directly related. Just as costs derive from substantial redundancy payments, savings result from reduced staff numbers. The hon. Gentleman cannot therefore say that there will be no savings but that there will be substantial costs, because the figures are directly related. I envisage most local authority staff transferring by one means or another to the new councils, irrespective of TUPE, but it is impossible to generalise on the application of TUPE because individual circumstances will vary.

Ravenscraig

Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions he has made in Government expenditure plans for the redevelopment of the Ravenscraig site in excess of those costs that will fall to British Steel and the European Union.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made very substantial resources available to Scottish Enterprise for economic and environmental development and has taken the needs of Lanarkshire and, in particular, the redevelopment of the Ravenscraig site, into account in so doing.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there is a gap between the reclamation of the Ravenscraig site, which British Steel will carry out, and a site with infrastructure on to which developers can move and that that gap must be

filled by European Union and United Kingdom Government funding? Unfortunately, European funds cannot be committed until the site is in public ownership and British Steel cannot sell until the deal is completed. Will the Secretary of State write such into his plans provision for public expenditure in 1995–96 specifically to trigger the physical work on the redevelopment of the Ravenscraig site?

Mr. Stewart: The House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and expertise on this matter. British Steel will of course meet its obligations, especially those relating to surface contamination. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a consultancy study will be completed in the near future and will go to the Lanarkshire development agency, British Steel and the local authorities. I accept that there may then need to be a sensible additional use of public resources and I shall be happy at an appropriate time to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the details.

Dr. Reid: With respect, I think that the Minister has missed the point—that there will be a period when bridging finance will be necessary to trigger the redevelopment of the Ravenscraig site and that that money cannot come from the European Union because the site will not at that stage be in public ownership as it will not be sold by its private owners until the development has started. The vicious circle can be broken only if the Government are prepared to provide finance as a mechanism to trigger the development. Will the Minister consider that point and raise it with his colleagues with a view to writing it into the 1994–95 economic plans?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot at this stage give specific commitments in relation to future public expenditure, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have fully supported the Lanarkshire development strategy. I believe that the strategy will provide options over a fairly long time scale. The hon. Gentleman will also know that substantial resources have been made available to Lanarkshire through Scottish Enterprise. I believe that those resources are paying off in terms of regeneration and I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assured the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), that I shall keep closely in touch on the detailed matters that he has raised.

Mr. Salmond: As Ravenscraig was probably sacrificed by British Steel as its entry price into a European cartel on other steel products, would it not be outrageous if British Steel escaped any of its obligations or if the site remained undeveloped because of a lack of political will and initiative from the Government? In view of the behaviour of British Steel and British Gas towards their customers and work forces in Scotland, what does the Minister think is the common factor—the fact that both were privatised or the fact that both were British?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman may have missed my earlier reassurance. I reassured the House that British Steel would meet its obligations, especially those in relation to surface contamination. However, there are positive proposals for the regeneration of the area, such as that from St. Andrews university for a university college. That is a positive proposal from an excellent university which has outstanding graduates such as the hon. Gentleman as well as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others.

Dutch Elm Disease

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned into the spread of Dutch elm disease; and which counties are most affected.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Forestry Commission has undertaken research on the spread of the Dutch elm disease fungus, mostly concentrating on measures and strategies for its control. The commission conducts periodic reviews of the geographic spread of the disease. It is endemic throughout Britain except for some parts of north Scotland.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that especially complete and helpful reply. Can he say whether there is any feasible chemical treatment which might be used to protect young trees? I listened with care to what he said about the spread throughout the United Kingdom, but is there any evidence to suggest that Dutch elm disease is more prevalent in some areas than in others?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It most certainly is more prevalent in some regions. For example, in Scotland the wych elm is more resistant to Dutch elm disease than the elms in the south. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in that subject. The Forestry Commission is undertaking research into such fungicide injections, which will include viruses to reduce the capacity of the Dutch elm disease fungus to damage elms. It is also doing research into genetic engineering of the English elm to increase resistance to the disease. As I have said, however, wych elm in Scotland is far more resistant, which goes to show that that type of tree is flourishing north of the border.

Mr. Galloway: Has the commission run any tests to ascertain the extent of the spread of Dutch elm disease in the cheap balsa wood Cabinet that runs the country? Is it not the case that, like a line of trees affected by Dutch elm disease—thick, hollow and rotten at the core—that Cabinet will be felled by the British electorate on 9 June?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, but he has a serious point. I once had to bring back a present of a wooden boat from the St. Lucian Parliament to the Speaker of this House. Unfortunately, there was a beetle inside which had eaten it by the time the Speaker received it. We always have to watch for the enemy within.

Investment

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage new investment by companies which already have a presence in Scotland and by companies from overseas.

Mr. Lang: My officials actively promote Scotland as a location for investment both by indigenous companies and by inward investors. Securing re-investment by existing inward investors is an increasingly important part of Locate in Scotland's work and I have asked it to devote additional resources to that task.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although in the past 15 years the Conservative Government have created the right climate for investment—with measures such as trade union reform, privatisation and

deregulation—Governments also have the capacity to stifle investment? Does he agree that Labour party policies such as giving power back to the trade unions, imposing a minimum wage on industry and embracing the job-destroying social chapter would bring investment in Scotland and the United Kingdom to a grinding halt?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not insignificant that the United Kingdom has secured no less than 40 per cent. of all the inward investment that has come into the single market from outside. That is because we have resisted such measures as those that my hon. Friend mentions. It is no wonder that President Jacques Delors said that the United Kingdom was a paradise for inward investment.

Mr. Chisholm: Is not the real problem the fact that we are second bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league in terms of manufacturing investment, which is leading to a decline in the number of manufacturing jobs in Scotland, as evidenced by the announcement last week of further redundancies at Peebles Electric in my constituency? Why could the Secretary of State yesterday only make a do-nothing addendum to the pathetic paper from the President of the Board of Trade? As he obviously has no ideas of his own, may I suggest that he invests in a copy of Labour's alternative policy paper, to be launched next week?

Mr. Lang: Labour's policy would drive inward investment out of the United Kingdom. The Labour party would take on all the extra labour costs espoused by their socialist partners in Europe. That is precisely the distinction between the two parties in the coming European election. As for manufacturing, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that output in Scotland rose by 2.5 per cent. last year, and the prediction is that it will rise substantially this year. Indeed, our manufactured exports were at a record level of some £11 billion last year.

Hospital Waiting Times

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about waiting times for appointments and operations in health board areas in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: At the end of 1993, 94 per cent. of patients had had their first out-patient appointments within 18 weeks following general practitioner referral—up from 92 per cent. the previous year. Ninety-two per cent. had waited less than 12 months for admission for treatment —up from 89 per cent. in 1992. Those are noteworthy achievements and I confidently expect further improvement as health boards work to reduce their waiting time guarantees.

Mr. Graham: We have heard of the terrible waiting times for constituents in need of hospital treatment. I am quite appalled. Why are the undertakings in the Prime Minister's citizens charter concerning consultant appointments and surgery not being honoured in my constituency or elsewhere in Scotland? I have here a document showing the appalling waiting times. People have to wait five or six months for a first appointment, and then months and


months for critical operations. When will the Government get their finger out and ensure that people receive the treatment that they need and deserve?

Mr. Stewart: There has been a continuous and gradual reduction in waiting lists despite the 28 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients since 1979 and the 225 per cent. increase in the number of day treatments. Those are the real figures. In the case of the Royal Alexandra hospital trust in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the waiting time for ophthalmology treatment is the lowest in Scotland. I accept that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there has been a problem with regard to urology. This is a new specialty, and demand has exceeded supply. There have been higher than expected levels of activity. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that these have been fully taken into account in the contract for the next year.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather sad that certain Opposition Members cannot give credit for the improvements that the figures he has given indicate? Does he agree that the significant improvements in the health service in Scotland would be set back if there were a national minimum wage?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. It constantly astonishes me that Opposition Members, while they say that they are committed to the health service, take every possible opportunity to criticise it and to create alarm and despondency where none should exist. I will give my hon. Friend an important figure: our public expenditure commitments will represent an increase of 2.5 per cent. in the number of day and in-patients in Scotland next year. That is a measure of the Government's real and practical commitment to the national health service in Scotland.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister ask his right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for health matters, to have specific discussions with the management of the NHS trust at Raigmore hospital in Inverness in view of that body's recent statement that it is having great problems with regard to recruiting and retaining specialists because of what it describes as national shortages in key clinical areas? This is creating very great concern and controversy in the highlands, and the Scottish Office must give it the utmost priority.

Mr. Stewart: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is representing his constituents with regard to this matter. I know that the point has been made to my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, who will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman specifically concerning the point that he has raised.

Mr. Foulkes: Are not doctors being urged to discharge patients far too early in an effort to reduce the waiting list? Does the Minister recall that the figures that he gave me for Ayrshire showed a doubling in the number of top administrators in Ayrshire and a reduction of 300 nurses? That is what is happening in the health service. Is it not appalling that when the chairman of the South Ayrshire national health service trust, Douglas Brown, writes to me he talks about his enterprise and not his health care units?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to initiative and enterprise and to the effective

use of resources in the health service. The effective use of resources will maximise the standards of care in the health service, which is the whole objective of the Government's reforms.

Trunk Roads

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent in Scotland on upgrading trunk roads in each of the last four years.

Lord Douglas-Hamilton: The amount spent on new construction and improvement of motorways and trunk roads in Scotland was £172 million in 1990–91, £175 million in 1991–92, £198 million in 1992–93 and £196 million in 1993–94. Our continuing commitment to a sustained level of investment in our road network is demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's announcement last week which set out the Government's plans for the next three years.

Mr. Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government, Aberdeen is now linked by dual carriageway to the nation's motorway network for the first time and that it is possible to drive on roads of either dual carriageway standard or motorway standard from Aberdeen to Istanbul? Does he agree that that is good news for businesses in the north-east of Scotland, holidaymakers in Aberdeen and tourists from Turkey?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is good for business and for tourism and it is an encouraging step. We also intend to upgrade the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen to near motorway standard in the medium to long term, but this is a substantial step at this stage.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Minister will be aware that yesterday there was a serious accident in my constituency resulting in fatalities and injuries and I know that he will wish to join me in sending sympathy to the bereaved relatives and to the injured. Will he undertake to write to me setting out the position that has been reached in relation to the upgrading of the A80 and the construction of the M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, I should like to be associated with the hon. Gentleman in sending sympathy to the families concerned. Of course there will be a full police inquiry which will be reported in due course.
The emphasis in future will be placed on achieving progress on upgrading the central Scotland motorway network and also on upgrading the A74 to motorway standard and upgrading the A1. The hon. Gentleman's point will certainly be remembered.

Population Statistics

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current population of Scotland; what were the figures for 10 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: According to the Registrar General's latest estimates, the population of Scotland was 5.12 million on 30 June 1993. This compares with 5.15 million in 1983 and 5.23 million in 1973.

Mr. Greenway: Has my hon. Friend discerned a trend in the population of Scotland, which is that it seems to go


down when there is a Labour Government? Why does he think that people leave home in Scotland when there is a Labour Government, and are they not wise to do so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The figures are revealing. In the period 1973–83, Scotland suffered net migration losses averaging more than 14,000 per year. For much of that period, Labour was in power, as my hon. Friend suggests. In the period 1983–93, the average net loss fell to below 7,000 but, most importantly, the population increased by 27,000 in the five years up to 1993. People come to Scotland and they like living there because of the excellence of the environment, the friendliness of the people and the magnificence of the heritage.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister not realise that the fall in the population of Scotland is proportionately the worst in the whole of western Europe? Given Scotland's immense resources and the abilities of her people, is that not also a damning indictment of this Parliament's misrule of Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. The latest figures show clearly that the number has risen in the past five years, so the prophesies of doom and gloom from the jaded Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches are unfounded. And more people will want to come and live in Scotland in the future.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the increase in world population is its greatest threat, will my hon. Friend make it a Government priority to address all international organisations to make them aware of the frightfulness that will result from the multiplying exponential curve of world population?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that that is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development; I will draw my hon. and learned Friend's concern about birth control to her attention.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: May I invite the Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Before I list the business itself, may I say that, given that counting in the European elections will not take place until late on Sunday 12 June and, in some seats, not until Monday 13 June, we have concluded that it will be for the general convenience of hon. Members if the House were to resume on Tuesday 14 June, rather than Monday 13 June as earlier proposed. I have had strong representations to that effect from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr.Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who had the assent of other minority parties.
In the light of that, the business for the first week after the Spring Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 14 JUNE—Debate on the GATT on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 15 JUNE—Report stage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 16 JUNE—Until about seven o'clock, Third Reading of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that the House is already in holiday mood.
FRIDAY 17 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 15 June to consider European Community document No. 4187/94 relating to vocational training policy and any further documents relating to vocational training policy recommended by the European Legislation Committee for debate.

[Wednesday 15 June:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 4187/94, Vocational Training (Leonardo da Vinci programme). Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xiv (1993–94) and HC 48-xvii (1993–94).]

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his distinctly populist business statement. However, I am disturbed to see that there is no Opposition day. It is difficult to see how the full complement of Opposition days—the number that we are required to have under Standing Orders—will be given in the time that remains available to us. Is not the problem compounded by the fact that we are still due a further three days in Government time to debate economic affairs following the unified Budget process?
There is still a great deal of anger in the House and, indeed, the country about how the Government have used civil service time to sabotage private Members' Bills. The letter from Sir Robin Butler to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), dated 13 May, does not provide an adequate response. We want an opportunity in Government time to debate the underlying principles involved in that series of issues.
Is the Leader of the House now in a position to respond to the point that I made to him last week about a debate, again in Government time, on the Child Support Agency?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to respond at this stage to the last of those requests. However, I note—I accept that it is not a complete answer to what the hon. Gentleman has said—that one of the longer Adjournment debates scheduled for tomorrow is on the Child Support Agency. That will provide at least some opportunity to air the relevant points. I will, of course, continue to bear the request in mind.
I simply do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about amendments and the Cabinet Secretary's letter, which seems to me to cover the point fully and to which I do not propose to add at the moment.
I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about Opposition days and economic days and, as always, I will consider them as sympathetically as circumstances allow. Obviously, my sympathy cannot secure anything next week, but I hope that we shall have some Opposition days reasonably soon after the recess.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: In view of today's announcement of the award of the contract for the national lottery, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage give consideration to an early debate about the national lottery?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly give the matter consideration, but I do not wish to excite too much hope.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making a concession to enable Parliament to return a day later after counting has been completed in all seats for the European elections. That will certainly go down well in the Sabbatarian areas of northern Scotland.
In a similar vein, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulties of the Scots with regard to school holidays and, soon after we come back, say when the summer recess may occur?
Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to bring forward the necessary amendments so that the House can come to an early resolution about amendments to procedures in the House?

Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I do not think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) would mind my saying that I had a useful and constructive conversation with him yesterday which I hope will pave the way for further progress before too long. I also hope to have some opportunities to talk to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
On the first of the hon. Gentleman's points, for the moment I must simply say let us wait and see how things go. Obviously I should like the House to get up at a reasonable time for the summer recess, but we have quite a lot of business to consider.

Mr. John Biffen: Notwithstanding the prestigious nature of those who have twisted the arm of my right hon. Friend about the date on which we are to return from the Whitsun recess, I remind him that this country is full of more than enough injustice that is required to be debated by this place. The House should show a sense of priority and judgment, rather than indulging in this gimmick of a 24-hour postponement because of the counting of votes in the European elections.

Mr. Newton: I note my right hon. Friend's observations, but I do not think that it was unreasonable —indeed, I think it was right—to take account of serious representations from serious people who felt that they would experience problems in their parts of the country in fulfilling their political duties.

Mr. Roger Berry: Is the Leader of the House aware that the assistant chief executive of the London borough of Sutton received a letter from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? It said:
the Government has undertaken to provide sufficient time for the remaining stages of this Bill to be completed.
Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Government made that commitment?

Mr. Newton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I am not aware of the letter and I certainly do not propose to comment about it off the cuff.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: When does my right hon. Friend think that there will be time for a debate about the Information Committee's report on the parliamentary data and video network system?

Mr. Newton: I certainly hope to be able to provide time for such a debate before the summer recess, but I cannot promise a specific date at the moment.

Mr. John Spellar: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1294.
[That this House notes that it is a year since responses to the Government's consultation Paper on wheelclamping had to be received; deplores the failure of the Home Office to produce proposals on private wheelclamping; and calls for urgent action by Government to put an end to this menace.]
Does he not agree that it is outrageous that it is now more than a year since replies to the Government's consultation document about wheel-clamping had to be received? Will he urge his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to bring proposals to the House at a very early stage so that we can put an end to the scandal once and for all?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring the question to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention. Clearly, it is a difficult issue which does not permit any quick and easy solution, but we shall make our conclusions known as soon as possible.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: How does my right hon. Friend justify his continued refusal to have a debate on the Balkans?

Mr. Newton: The situation in the Balkans is one on which, as my hon. Friend knows, I have repeatedly made it clear that the Government would make judgments about statements and debates as circumstances developed. I have not judged it right in recent weeks to provide time for such a debate. Obviously, if I judge that it is necessary, I shall.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Surely we cannot keep hearing talk about longer and longer holidays for Members of Parliament. The Leader of the House has just announced another one today. Is he aware that chances are that in this year Parliament will have been in session less than seven months and will have had more than five months' holidays while we cannot find Government or

parliamentary time to debate the Bill for 6.5 million disabled people? It really is a scandal. Instead of having an extra day to count the tinpot results from the Common Market, we should sit in here until the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is passed.

Mr. Newton: Despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, the number of days that the House has sat in recent parliamentary Sessions, and is likely in this one, is not very different from what it has been for many previous years.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I thank the Leader of the House for extending the recess, given that the House inflicted on Northern Ireland proportional representation, which takes three times as long to count?
On the day when the Carers National Association is having a Lobby in the House, may I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1176 which was signed by more than 70 hon. Members?
[That this House welcomes the publication of the Carers National Association report 'Community Care-Just a Fairy Tale?'; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Health to introduce assessment for carers, along with a sitting service and respite care, so that the expectations of the community care system may be fulfilled.]
Will he find time for an early debate on care of the carers as well as care of cathedrals?

Mr. Newton: I was aware of the reception this evening. Indeed, I had hoped to attend, though I suspect that I shall be tied up on the Floor of the House with the Spring Adjournment motion. However, I send it my best wishes and take note of the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Some heat has been generated today about the fact that we are not to be allowed to resume the activities of the House on Monday 13 June. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a whole period of the House's sitting when we were not able to leave the place because we could not get a taxi? Some well-meaning person had apparently complained about the noise of the bell that summons taxis and, as a result, the Serjeant at Arms apparently issued an order to the engineers department to cut off the bell so that we could not leave the Members' entrance to get a taxi. That may have come to an end, but can my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that we will in future be able to call taxis in the time-honoured tradition of this place?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that it is quite in my power to give such an undertaking on my own authority, but I certainly hope that my hon. and learned Friend's request will have been heard by those who have that power.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend find time after the recess to debate the collapse into receivership of part of Peter de Savary's empire and the impact that it will have on the ability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to enter into a section 106 agreement with Peter de Savary's empire regarding land on Canvey Island in my constituency?

Mr. Newton: I well understand why my hon. Friend raised the matter, in view of his constituency concern. My proper response is to undertake to draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House will recall that Madam Speaker felt


unable to give precedence to a motion referring the Scott complaint to the Committee of Privileges. As I understand the rules of the House, the Minister does not need that to trigger a reference being made to the Committee of Privileges. He himself can move that motion. Will he do so in the week that we return?

Mr. Newton: I have no intention whatever of doing so. I would wish to pay greater heed to the ruling of Madam Speaker on the matter and her attitude to my right hon. Friend's personal statement than the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an immediate debate on the administrative arrangements for the European elections? I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that most of my constituents and people in the rest of Ealing which does not fall in my constituency still have no polling cards—or where they do, they are usually given the wrong polling station—

Madam Speaker: Order. Are we on next week's business?

Mr. Greenway: We are, Madam Speaker; I have asked for a debate on this matter.

Madam Speaker: Well, get on with it then.

Mr. Greenway: There has been the most almighty cock-up by the new Ealing Labour council and this House should hear about it.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I would care simply to repeat my hon. Friend's graphic description of what has happened, but I hope that his words will be noted. For my part, I have enough problems without becoming a returning officer in the European elections.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the awful and continuing menace of vandalism in schools, especially in my constituency where I visited six schools last week? Will the right hon. Gentleman please ask the Secretary of State for Education to recognise the seriousness of this matter for schools whose budgets are already overstretched? Rather than just pay tribute with me, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would, to the schools, the staff and the police, will he look at ways in which they can really be helped in such very difficult times and in dealing with such an awful plague?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem—another one to which there is no simple answer. I am sure that he will consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the appalling circumstances—[Interruption.] If one or two of the rest of us could get a word in uninterrupted!
In view of the appalling circumstances in the former Yugoslavia, and in view of the admirable services rendered by our military chaps over there, is not it time that the House had an opportunity to debate these matters and to back up our military chaps against the very adverse circumstances they face because of the decisions of other parties outside this House?

Mr. Newton: I have already made some comment on the question of debate here and obviously I will bear the hon. Gentleman's representations in mind.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the recess will include a statutory bank holiday, which we all hope will be enjoyed, as usual, by millions of people, will a Minister come to the House to reassure hon. Members that there is no Government plan to scrap this bank holiday as there was to scrap the popular May day bank holiday? When will the Government acknowledge that they got it hopelessly wrong and had to do a U-turn, for which we are all grateful?
While he is about it, could that Minister explain why Britain has fewer statutory bank holidays than any other country in the European Community—[Interruption.] I am referring to statutory bank holidays. As Conservative Back Benchers get very confused over simple matters, shall we distinguish between recesses and statutory bank holidays? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman about statutory bank holidays and about what reassurance the Government will give us that there is no plan to attack the remaining bank holidays.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may draw such a distinction, but the net result would be another parliamentary day off. My right course might be to put him in touch with his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. David Jamieson: Can the right hon. Gentleman find time after the recess for a debate about the way in which competitive tendering of local authority services is operating? This week, the way in which contracts have been awarded for school meals in Cornwall has thrown very serious doubt on the competence and integrity of the ruling Liberal Democrats in Cornwall, who will put more than 1,000 people's jobs at risk.

Mr. Newton: I sometimes feel that the European elections are being fought with me in the middle of the battlefield. I shall not comment on the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that it will be noted by those at whom it is directed.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On the question of bank holidays, is my right hon. Friend aware that when the late leader of the Labour party, Mr. Michael Foot—[Interruption.]—the ex-leader, introduced May day as a bank holiday it was called Union day? But what was not known was that that was the date when Scotland and England were united under the Act of Union. That is how it should be celebrated.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can better that. I am grateful for that additional piece of learning. My own recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Leader of the Opposition and former Leader of the House, is of his record in announcing five guillotines on one day.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement as soon as possible confirming or denying that instructions have been sent to all British overseas posts saying that, in future, those who require a visa to visit the United Kingdom shall only be able to visit for a much shorter period than the current six months? If those reports are true, will the Leader of the House understand that they contrast very ill with this week's announcement that, in


future, millionaires, however dodgy, and however unsavoury the source of their income, will be able to settle and live in this country with the greatest of ease?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept the linkage that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. I shall bring the substantive part of his question to my right hon. Friend's attention, and I make the point that my right hon. Friend is here to answer questions on the first Wednesday that we are back.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am pleased that he was able to tell the House this afternoon about the progress that is being made in discussions between himself and the Labour party, and possibly the Liberal party, about the Procedure Committee report on changing the procedure in the House? Is he further aware that there is tremendous support for those changes on these Benches? In view of the progress that is being made, may I push him a little and ask him when he thinks that he might be able to come back to the House to report progress?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can push me very far. What I said was that I had had a constructive conversation with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) yesterday. Both of us would hope to be able to make some progress in the next couple of months, but that will depend on how those conversations go. That would be what we would like if we can achieve it. As to the support from the hon. Gentleman's Benches, I wish that he could spread it two Benches in front of him.

Ms Liz Lynne: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1190 in my name?
[That this House condemns the actions of the honourable Members for Sutton and Cheam, Hertsmere, Bristol North West, Gainsborough and Horncastle and Bury St. Edmunds, who, in collusion with the Government, very seriously delayed the progress on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, against the wishes of this House and the over six million disabled people of Britain; calls upon the honourable Members to withdraw the remaining amendments tabled in their names but drafted by the Government; calls on the Government to end the practice of giving selected backbenchers the support of Parliamentary Counsel in order to derail Bills; and further calls for measures to be taken to ensure that the wishes of this Rouse cannot be overridden by an overmighty executive or by the filibustering of individual honourable Members.]
May we have a debate on that subject as soon as possible after the recess, as well as a debate on the legislation on civil rights for disabled persons which the Government so disgracefully talked out last Friday?

Mr. Newton: I have made a number of comments on that matter, both today and on earlier occasions. I really do not think that I can usefully add to what I have said.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House talk to the Secretary of State for Transport and arrange for an early debate on the appalling and

deteriorating transport system in Greater London? In particular, I draw attention to the contrast between the situation in London and that in other European capital cities that have a strategic authority, such as Paris, and other places where there is coherent planning?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, some of my hon. Friends were commenting during his remarks. He might in the first instance talk to those of his colleagues who did not share his objectives in relation to the Crossrail Bill.

Hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam

Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make. On 9 May, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) rose on a point of order and said, in relation to amendments in her name to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill:
I would like to make it abundantly clear that I raise my own amendments. I sought consultation, but it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source."—[Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 23.]
The hon. Lady has now written to me to say that she was anxious to accept personal responsibility for the amendments in her name, and that she did not intend to imply that they had not been drafted by others in the first instance.
I cannot accept that the words
it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source
did not amount to a denial that the amendments had been drafted by others. At the time the hon. Lady volunteered her disclaimer, the House had already been told that the amendments had been drafted by parliamentary counsel. Her statement did not so much mislead the House as exasperate it.
In this respect, I believe that the hon. Lady's statement fell below the standards that the House is entitled to expect from its Members. I strongly rebuke her for her conduct on that occasion.

Lady Olga Maitland: In the light of your statement, Madam Speaker, may I make an unreserved apology to you and the House?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 24 JUNE

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Simon Coombs
Mr. Tony Banks
Sir Gerard Vaughan

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

HEALTH CARE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 98 (5) (Welsh Grand Committee),
That the Matter of health care in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Vehicle Identification

Mr. John Whittingdale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require new vehicles to display a visible vehicle identification number.
The purpose of the Bill is to assist the police in catching car thieves and preventing car crime. The latest figures for car theft show an increase last year in the number of stolen vehicles to nearly 600,000—about one every minute.
Earlier this week, the RAC revealed that motorists in England and Wales bear a greater risk of having their cars stolen than any other drivers in the world. Even more worrying is the growth in professional car crime, in which cars are stolen by organised gangs rather than by joyriders. That is shown clearly in the sharp rise in the proportion of vehicles that are stolen and never seen again. That proportion has now reached 38 per cent. in the country and 50 per cent. in London.
The requirement in my Bill for the fitting of visible vehicle identification numbers—"visible VINs"—will not solve the problem, but it will make a difference by making it easier for police officers to spot a stolen car and harder for car thieves to disguise one. There is already a requirement for all cars to carry a vehicle identification number; but, far from being easily visible, the number often presents the motorist with a considerable challenge. Even finding the number requires him first to locate the plate that is fixed in the engine compartment under the bonnet, and then to scrabble around under the carpet next to the driver's door, where it is usually stamped into the chassis.
Even if the cautious purchaser of a second-hand car succeeds in finding the number, he still cannot be sure that the car is genuine and has not been ringed. Car ringing is becoming a major industry. Every day smashed-up cars are being sold in salvage yards for far more than they are worth; the write-offs are being bought not for the value of their parts or for scrap, but simply for their identity.
Having bought a write-off, the professional car thief will go out and steal a car of identical make and model. New licence plates can be fitted in just a few minutes; then the VIN on the chassis is tampered with, or the metal on which it is stamped is cut out and the VIN of the write-off is welded in its place. If the thief did not acquire a vehicle registration document, he need only contact the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to be sent a new one.
The result will be that the thief has a car that appears entirely legitimate because it has a licence plate and a VIN that match those on the vehicle registration document, of which he is the legal owner. I recently visited the stolen vehicle squad, where I saw several vehicles that had been ringed in that way. It was only after careful forensic examination by experts that that was discovered.
I pay tribute to the officers of the Metropolitan police's stolen vehicles investigation squad for their work and for the help that they have given me in preparing the Bill. Although comprising only 45 officers, it has had considerable success. Last month alone, its efforts resulted in the arrest of 22 people and the recovery of property worth more than £2 million. Those officers are still only scratching the surface of the problem and they believe that visible VINs would be a major weapon in the defeat of car crime.
To be effective, the VIN must be placed so that it can be seen through the windscreen by a police officer on the beat and it should not be accessible from inside or outside the vehicle. The police recommend that it should be recessed into the dashboard at the front nearside A-pillar and that it should be visible through a gap in the obscuration band.
Supported by a wide range of companies involved in the motor industry, the European secure vehicle alliance, an all-party parliamentary group of the House, has drawn up a specification for visible VINs which is supported by the police. In particular, the visible VIN should be designed in such a way that tampering and removal is obvious to the naked eye.
Several manufacturers are already fitting visible VINs. Some are etching the number on to the windows of the vehicle. That is better than nothing, but it is not sufficient, as windows may be easily replaced or the number altered. Plates stuck to the top of the dashboard are also inadequate, as they are easily accessible and may be prised off.
I understand that the Ford Motor Company initially adopted that approach. The new Mondeo has a visible VIN, fitted in the manner approved by the police, as do BMWs and Jaguars. The Home Office has called on other manufacturers to follow their example.
For several years, a number of states in the United States of America have had a requirement for visible VINs. The director of Michigan state police recently wrote to the stolen vehicle squad, saying that the
visible VIN is an invaluable tool for both our patrol officers and autotheft investigators. The VIN plate is easily checked and extremely difficult to alter.
In preparing the Bill, I have been extremely grateful for the support of a number of organisations. I have already mentioned the European secure vehicle alliance and the Metropolitan police's stolen vehicles squad. Their assistance has been invaluable. I have received a letter from Mr. Taylor, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police and secretary of the crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, saying that the visible VIN was recently considered by ACPO's crime committee and was strongly supported. He states that it will help not only to defeat the car thief but to uncover getaway cars used in many other types of crime, including armed robbery and terrorism.
The Association of British Insurers has written to me to say that it
fully supports the introduction of such a system and has been calling for it for many years.
The RAC made clear its strong support for the introduction of visible VINs by all car manufacturers, together with legislation to make it an offence to tamper with a VIN.
Visible VINs alone will not defeat car crime. The prudent motorist can take a number of other measures. The national vehicle security register is run by Retainacar and provides information about the history of a motor car, which could be easily checked by dealers and those considering the purchase of a second-hand vehicle.
Immobilisers and car alarms are also effective in deterring car thieves. In the short time that it has been available, the new tracker device, which can be fitted inside a vehicle and is activated by remote control if a car is stolen, has been remarkably successful both in achieving the recovery of a stolen vehicle and the capture of those responsible.
However, the measure proposed in the Bill is simple, and has already been shown to have a significant impact on cutting car crime. It has long been called for by the police, and is supported by the insurance industry, manufacturers and the public. The only people likely to oppose the measure are the car thieves. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Whittingdale, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Barry Sheermar, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Mr. Michael Brown.

VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION

Mr. John Whittingdale accordingly presented a Bill to require new vehicles to display a visible vehicle identification number: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Adjournment (Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 26th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 14th June.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: On 29 April, the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), much to his honour, initiated a debate on the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Ministers should provide sufficient time on the floor of the House before 27th May 1994 to allow all remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to be completed, and that sufficient time be provided before the end of the Session for the consideration of any Amendments to the Bill which may be made by the House of Lords."—[Official Report, 29 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 497.]
The motion was approved by the House, entirely without dissent, and merited not only a quick and positive oral ministerial response, but also ungrudging implementation by the Government. Yet the will of the House, as expressed by the motion, is still being ignored, some will say contemptuously ignored, even as we debate the rising of the House for the Spring Adjournment. Indeed, much apart from respecting the will of this House, the Government made clear, both on 6 and 20 May, their determination to wreck the Bill by fair means or foul, and plumbed new depths of parliamentary skulduggery last Friday.
The whole country saw then what the Prime Minister's recent promise of "less confrontation, more decency" means in practice. He made that promise in an address to Scottish Conservatives in Inverness when paying tribute to the memory of our late and deeply mourned colleague, John Smith, the weekend before last.
But never was there a more blatant act of indecency than was witnessed in this House on the day of John's funeral last Friday, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, having already had to apologise, in a personal statement to the House, for his conduct in the debates on the Bill on 6 May, "cynically talked out" a measure whose only purpose is to give full citizenship to Britain's 6.5 million disabled people.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will not the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when the Labour Government and their Labour predecessors were in office that kind of parliamentary activity in respect of private Members' Bills was normal practice? Does he deny that Labour Governments have ever acted against private Members' Bills in that manner?

Mr. Morris: The answer to that question was given by his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) when he moved the motion to which I referred. On 29 April, he pointed out that under the last Labour Government a great many Bills to which the Government were not especially friendly were allowed to proceed to the statute book. In the particular case of my own Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, it reached the statute book in 1970, in spite of initial opposition from Ministers.
Quite definitely, the balance has been tilted very heavily against the private Member over recent years. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Exeter for detailing so thoroughly the change there has been in ministerial attitudes to private Members' Bills over recent years. A great many Bills now are Government Bills masquerading as private Members' Bills. Indeed, I am sure that it would be helpful to the


House if, in parentheses after the short title of a Bill, the letter G could appear to indicate that the Bill is one drafted by the Government, if that is the case. There has been a marked change in the treatment of private Members' Bills on the Floor of the House and we need very urgently, I believe, a constructive report about this from the Select Committee on Procedure. I rejoice that it is looking at the procedure for private Members' Bills, and I am totally certain that it will make helpful proposals to this House.
The House will understand—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any and every disablement group in the whole of the United Kingdom may write to the Chairman of that Committee and ask to be heard by that Committee? It does not necessarily follow that they will be heard, but their letters will be treated as evidence by that Committee when it considers these matters. Every group involved in this matter in the United Kingdom is now free to make representations to Parliament.

Mr. Morris: The Select Committee on Procedure has been extremely kind. It has already written to many people to ask if they have evidence to offer members of the Committee. I have no doubt whatever that it will make it clear that information is welcomed not only from both sides of this House but from anyone living anywhere with an interest in private Members' legislation who has constructive proposals for it to consider.
The House will understand my strong feelings, as the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill's author, about the disgraceful way in which it has been treated by the Government over the past two and a half years. When I first brought the Bill to the House in December 1991, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said that his attitude to it was one of "benevolent neutrality". Last Friday, his behaviour in talking it out was seen by disabled people everywhere—I quote one of their leaders—as an act of "malevolent hostility" to the Bill.
If the Leader of the House is still in any doubt about the feelings of disabled people in regard to what happened last Friday, he should speak to the editor of the Evening Echo in Chester Hall lane, Basildon, about a reader's letter sent to him by Denise Smith of Rayleigh in Essex last weekend. Denise broke her neck in a car accident. She states that her self-esteem plunged last Friday to "an all-time low" and that she was left feeling that an apology was being demanded "for my very existence". Her letter continues:
The Minister has now made it blatantly clear that anyone with a disability is well and truly second-class and cannot expect to be treated as a person who could, given the chance, be a useful member of society.
That eloquent comment from Denise Smith of Essex is highly representative of the mass of letters that I have received since last Friday.
When the Bill commenced its Report stage on 6 May, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People was asked whether he or his Department had been
in any way involved in the drafting of any of the amendments or the new clause tabled by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam…for Bristol, North-West…and for Bury St. Edmunds".[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 991.]
The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had played
No part whatever in the drafting of any of the amendments and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department has been involved in the drafting of any of the amendments in this

area.
We now know that what the right hon. Gentleman said then was untrue, but we did not find out the whole truth until I tabled a parliamentary question for priority reply on 18 May asking:
on what date the Minister for Disabled People authorised his Department to instruct Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the amendments tabled to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by five hon. Members on 3 May.
In total refutation of what he had told the House at column 991 on 6 May, the Minister's reply to my question stated:
On the 20 April 1994 I authorised my officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to draft amendments.
It was that parliamentary reply that proved conclusively that the Minister's response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), at column 991 on 6 May, had very seriously misled the House and that now the Prime Minister was also involved, since, in a letter of 5 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Prime Minister wrote:
It is clearly of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate information to the House. If they knowingly fail to do this, then they should relinquish their positions.
In the reply given to my parliamentary question of 18 May, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made it pikestaff plain that, 16 days before, he told the House on 6 May that he had "no part" in the drafting of the 80 wrecking amendments and that
nobody in my Department had been involved in the drafting of any of the amendments",
he had, in fact, authorised his departmental officials
to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to draft amendments.
In his personal statement of apology to the House on 9 May, the Minister regretted, in the understatement of the century, that he had not made "a fuller explanation" earlier of his Department's role in drafting the 80 amendments tabled by the five hon. Members. He could, of course, have given us all the facts about his Department's role in the debate on the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter on 29 April, on which he spoke at considerable length and on which I now ask for action before the House rises for the Spring recess. That the Minister did not take the opportunity given by that debate on 29 April—nine days after he had instructed his officials, in effect, to wreck the Bill—is a source of deep and enduring concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and in all parties.
It really is totally essential that we should have a full ministerial statement of the Government's attitude to the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter. The Leader of the House must know that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has the backing of a clear parliamentary majority and an even more emphatic majority of the British people, including all disabled people; that it has already been approved at all stages in the House of Lords; and that, but for the wrecking tactics used against the Bill, it would be now be awaiting Royal Assent. The Government can no longer be allowed to pretend that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It was Oscar Wilde who said, among friends, after the disappointing first night of one of his plays:
The play was a great success, but the audience a failure.
This is the Government's position in relation to the public reaction to their obstruction of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Their task now is to join with all of us, in all parts of both Houses of Parliament, who want urgently to try to restore some faith among disabled people in political


decency and parliamentary democracy. Nothing could achieve that more quickly, or more surely, than a statement today from the Leader of the House accepting the call of the hon. Member for Exeter on the Government for the parliamentary time needed to enact the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in this Session of Parliament.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sorely tempted to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), not least because I was somewhat caught up in the events of last Friday. I intend to speak on a very different subject, but I will say that I believe that he made a powerful speech. He has been a doughty campaigner for the disabled for longer than I have been in the House, which is 24 years. I regret the manner in which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been dealt with, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows.
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I intend to talk about the Balkans. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said this afternoon that he thought that it was a scandal that the House would not sit on Friday or on 13 June because several important domestic subjects—we have just heard about one of them—would not be debated. It is greatly to be regretted that we are not taking the opportunity of using one of those days for debating what is, by any standards, one of the greatest international crises since the war—arguably the greatest and the one fraught with the most danger.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Vietnam was worse.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, says from a sedentary position that Vietnam was worse. I am not sure that he is right; certainly in terms of the European continent he is not right. However, I will not be diverted by the hon. Gentleman because I want to make one or two—I hope—important points.
I emphasise the fact—again, this will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend—that I strongly deprecate the fact that the House has not been given the opportunity more often to debate the crisis in the former Yugoslavia and, in particular, the terrible events in Bosnia. Throughout the whole of this long, tragic saga, we have hardly had an opportunity to debate the issue exclusively. We had a brief, three-hour debate introduced by the Liberal Democrats on a Supply day. If my memory serves me correctly, we have had one debate on the Balkans in Government time. We have had one or two foreign affairs debates in which it has been germane to mention the matter, but the House has not focused its attention as much as it should have done.
When the House neglects to debate these matters, it marginalises itself, because what is happening in the Balkans is of enormous significance to us all. I do not want to go over that point again because I have taken every possible opportunity to speak on the subject. I have spoken about the atrocities and about the mistakes made by leaders in this country and elsewhere in tackling the matter. I regret the prevarication and the wrong signals which have repeatedly been given to the aggressors. My right hon. Friend knows all that.
Although I am, indeed, criticising my right hon. Friend for not giving us the time for a debate, I thank him for his unfailing courtesy and I thank my right hon. Friend the

Foreign Secretary who, on many occasions, has received the officers of the all-party Bosnia group to discuss the matter. Although we have not always come away happy with the outcome of our discussions, my right hon. Friend has made himself available most generously; for that, at least, we are grateful.
Let me come to my two main points. I refer the House to a meeting that took place within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster yesterday. Sadly, it was not well attended by hon. Members; one understands the many competing demands on our time. Yesterday, we had a visit from a remarkable body—the Serbs Citizens Council.
During all the debate on the situation in Bosnia, there has been a regrettable tendency for people to talk as if the war was a simple civil war, which it manifestly is not, and to ignore the fact that it started very much as aggression from another country against a sovereign state which we have recognised. There has been a regrettable tendency too to talk about the warring factions. That is an insulting term because one of them is in fact the legitimately recognised Government of a sovereign state. In all parts of the House and the country, there has also been a tendency to claim —I am certainly not singling out the Government for blame here—that we are dealing with the Serbs, the Muslims and the Croats.
When Sarajevo hosted the winter Olympics a little over 10 years ago, the city was held out as an example of—I do not like the phrase because I think it clumsy—multi-ethnic co-operation. People lived side by side in harmony. They intermarried. They respected each other. They worked together. All that—or, rather, a lot of that—has been literally blown asunder in the past two and a half years. I corrected myself there because all of it has not been blown asunder: the fact remains that the Government of Bosnia, whom we recognise, are still a Government composed of Muslims, Croats and Serbs.
The members of the Serbs Citizens Council who came to see us yesterday emphasised that fact. They made some important points which should be put on the record. They referred to the Assembly of Citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina of Serbian nationality which was held on 27 March this year, in which more than 500 delegates from all parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina took part. They said that the assembly provided a platform for the opinions of the estimated 200,000 Serbs residing in the free territory—the territory still controlled by the Bosnian Government. They made the point that the war criminal Karadzic—and they called him that—represented no more than 40 per cent. of the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I could recite the facts and figures. If I did so, the House would no doubt be interested but it would perhaps also be unduly detained. Let me make one point above all others. The two people who were speaking for the council yesterday were Mr. Goran Simic, who is a poet and essayist, one of the founders of PEN in Bosnia and the president of the Cultural Association of Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a lady, Nada Salimovic, who is the president of the Centre for Peace in Sarajevo.
We were much moved by what those two visitors had to say. In particular, the lady turned to us and said, "I am a Serb but I do not think of myself just in those terms. I am a citizen of Bosnia. I am married to a Muslim. Our children have been brought up to respect different points of view and different cultures. We are part of European civilisation." And they are.
It is to the lasting discredit of us all that European civilisation has been torn asunder in that land over the past two and a half years, and it is to the lasting discredit of us all that we have not been able more effectively to deal with the situation. I do not belong to the "something must be done" school because I think I can claim that I warned the House about the war before it even started. I initiated the first debate at 3.20 am in early December 1991—some five months before the Bosnian war erupted—urging that we should put in air and naval patrols to deter the Serb aggression in Croatia and to protect Dubrovnik. I still believe that, had we been resolute at that time, up to 250,000 lives could have been saved and the 3 million people in Europe who are refugees would not be refugees.
Throughout the Bosnian conflict, I—and members of all parties—have consistently advocated a tougher and more resolute approach. Approximately 60 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion stating that, in the wake of Gorazde, the rest of the safe havens must be safe. It also draws attention to the fact that we proved in Sarajevo that, if one not only talks tough but acts tough, one gets results. Ultimately, we should be prepared not to put in masses of ground troops but to allow the Bosnian Government to defend themselves and give them air cover in so doing.
What is morally wrong can never be politically right. It is immoral that, when we recognise a sovereign state, we do not go to its aid or give it the means to defend itself or allow it the means to acquire the necessary weapons—it is not as if we are being asked to hand over the weapons personally. There is no point in saying that there is an embargo across Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia does not exist, and we recognise its component parts as sovereign states.
According to what we were told at yesterday's meeting with the Serbs, it appears that there is a very large number of people—I have no way of confirming or challenging the figures—of Serbian background and nationality in Bosnia who think of themselves as Bosnians first and Serbs second and who wish to defeat fascism and to see a victory for democracy. It is essential that we recognise that fact. It would be utterly scandalous if, without debate—or even with debate, for that matter—we allowed the Bosnian Government to be browbeaten into a settlement that recognises and rewards ethnic cleansing and the changing of boundaries by force. The message that that would send not only to Europe—one has to think of the many fragile situations in eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union—but beyond about the impotence of the so-called new world order would be dire indeed. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to relay these points to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister; I regret that I am unable to do so in the course of a proper debate on Bosnia and the Balkans.
With the strong support of my fellow officers in the all-party group, I have often suggested that a summit meeting be held for the leaders of the four permanent members of the Security Council involved. President Yeltsin made the same suggestion, but after we had made ours; perhaps he read our press releases. I have raised this issue in questions on the Floor of the House and in letters to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who has generously agreed to meet the officers of the all-party group shortly after the House returns from the recess. I am extremely grateful for that, but events are not standing still.
I should like to think that, in the fortnight during which the House is not sitting, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will discuss with Presidents Yeltsin, Mitterrand and Clinton the convening of a conference on the Balkans. Such a conference would make President Milosevic—who is the arch-villain—aware that he and his warlords, Mladic and Karadzic, will not be allowed to get away with murder, to keep their brutally gotten gains or to succeed in ethnic cleansing. Perhaps only a meeting at that level and of that importance can impress on the world that—for all that we have made mistakes—we are determined in that at least.
I do not know how many hon. Members have seen the film, "Schindler's List". I saw it during the Easter recess. I was much moved by it; I am sure that anyone who saw it must have been. When I came out of the cinema with my 22-year-old son, who is at university, who was also very moved by it, he said to me, "What you are talking about in Bosnia is very similar"—and it is. Even as we commemorate 50 years after D-day—I say "comme-morate"—and 49 years after we celebrated a victory over fascism, deeds are being done in our own continent that are as despicable as those marked in that film.
Let no one be in any doubt. Appeasement plunged the world into catastrophe in the 1930s; appeasement can plunge the world into even greater catastrophe in the 1990s, as we approach the end of the millennium.

Mr. David Winnick: There is much in what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said—he said it very eloquently—with which I agree. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as some of my colleagues will remember, at various times when statements have been made to the House, I have indicated my view that we should not give in to appeasement, that we should be very much aware of the terrible crimes that have been committed in the former Yugoslavia, and especially in Bosnia, and that ethnic cleansing is totally unacceptable.
I remember Michael Foot's last speech—I believe that it was literally his last speech in the House—in which, in the most moving way, he described his horror at what the Serbians were doing. There was no doubt in his mind that it was the Serbian warlords, first and foremost, who were responsible for what is happening in Bosnia.
I can understand the Leader of the House giving the explanation that he did about the House coming back a day later after the Whitsun recess. I have no quarrel with that. However, I am not very happy about the way in which we seem to be drifting increasingly into longer and longer recesses. I know that the Leader of the House, although he did not actually deny that we were having longer recesses than previously, said that there was not much difference. However, it appears to be the case that, two years ago, in 1992, for example, we broke up in the middle of July—certainly a week earlier, if not more than that.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): indicated assent.

Mr. Winnick: I see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It will be interesting to notice the date that we break up for the summer recess this year.
Sometimes we have to explain to people outside this place the difference between holidays and recesses—that a recess is not necessarily a holiday. When I am holding my surgeries in July and August—I know that the same applies


to other hon. Members; I am not praising myself in any way—I do not necessarily feel that I am on holiday. I do take a summer holiday, and it is wise to do so, but a distinction needs to be drawn.
I am not one of those who believe that it is useful to have longer and longer breaks from the House. One of the virtues of our parliamentary democracy is that ours is a full-time Parliament. "Full-time" obviously does not mean that we do not have recesses, which are necessary and perhaps needed for many reasons, but we should not drift into a situation where it is accepted, for example, that we break up in the middle of July and come back in the second or third week, or perhaps the last week, of October. We should be very careful about this.
Governments of all parties very often have good reason, especially when they are in difficulty, for not wanting the House to sit. For all the reasons with which we are very familiar, this is especially so in the case of the current Government, as will undoubtedly be demonstrated in the results of the European election of 9 June.

Mr. Newton: Although I do not wish to suggest other than that the hon. Gentleman is making his point in an extremely reasonable way or that his manner is uncharacteristic, I should point out that the very early July date to which he has referred had something to do with the disturbance in the programme that resulted from the Danish referendum of that year. A good deal of pressure is put on me to implement—in shorthand terms—the recommendations of the Jopling report. One of those recommendations is precisely what the hon. Gentleman is resisting.

Mr. Winnick: I note and appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am not by any means in favour of all Jopling's recommendations. The suggested morning sittings, however, would at least be some sort of compensation. As I have said, this ought to remain a full-time Parliament.
I agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, in respect of which the Government have acted very shabbily. Perhaps the majority of those in the country at large did not notice that the Bill was being debated. Conservative Members may believe me or not, as they wish, when I say that there is a strong feeling that disabled people have been treated shabbily. I am pleased about this feeling. It is felt—quite correctly—that Parliament too has been treated in a shabby way.
Bearing in mind everything that my right hon. Friend has said about the measure that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry), I should point out that at no stage did the Government then say that they would oppose it. On 11 March, for example, no one voted against the Bill. The Prime Minister said that the matter would be considered carefully in Committee. In the course of the four Committee sittings no Government amendments were put forward. If the measure is wrong, for all the reasons that the Government have put forward, surely Ministers should have used the opportunity of the Committee stage to have it amended. What happened afterwards? On Report, 80 amendments—all of them wrecking devices prepared by the Government and drafted by parliamentary counsel—were tabled.
This is a disgraceful way to treat Parliament, and it is certainly a disgraceful way to treat 6.5 million disabled people. Just as groups have needed legislation to deal with discrimination on grounds of race, sex, or whatever else, so it is accepted that we need laws to protect the interests of the disabled. The sooner we have such legislation the better.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House of Commons would be much improved if, as he has suggested, we were to spend more time debating crucial national, regional and policy issues and to accept much less legislation of poor quality from any Executive, of whatever colour? No Executive should interfere with private Members' legislation that has cleared the hurdles of Committee stage and so on.

Mr. Winnick: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, especially on his last point. The Leader of the House will no doubt have noted his hon. Friend's remarks.
My main reason for intervening in this debate is to express concern about employment and related matters. I have read in the press that the Government are considering making an attempt to tighten up proposals for the jobless. Apparently, the unemployed will have to show not only that they are actively seeking work but also that other measures are being taken.
Undoubtedly, the impression being given is that people rather like being unemployed. Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the vast majority of the unemployed are desperately eager to find work. I accept that a few people here and there, for various reasons, do not want to work—that they adopt the same attitude as a number of rich people. Where vacancies occur, people sometimes start to queue in the middle of the night. They are anxious to be interviewed so that they may lose their current status, with all the associated problems.
These people—many of them with families—live on the very lowest incomes. They want to be in the same position as individuals like ourselves—able to earn a living. They also want the pride of being involved in work. Any impression to the contrary, such as the Government at times seem to want to give, is based on fantasy. From a propaganda point of view, it may be useful to try to explain away the very high level of unemployment, but, as my hon. Friends, from experience in their constituencies, know only too well, the unemployed are eager to find work.
We have been celebrating many 50th anniversaries. Today is the 50th anniversary of the wartime White Paper on employment. That document, which was produced by the coalition Government of the day, created feelings of great hope. Members of the forces and civilians were given the expectation that, when the war ended—as it did a year later—there would be no return to the misery of the 1920s and the 1930s.
People were led to believe that, when the war against fascism was finished, when the fascist enemy had been destroyed—hopefully, once and for all—they would be able to earn a living and bring up their families properly. The hope was that they would not have to live anywhere near the poverty levels experienced by their parents and grandparents. It is a matter of deep regret that the unemployment figures in Britain remain so high.
However, we should be concerned not only about the number of people who are unemployed, but also about the way in which some employers are clearly exploiting the


situation by offering very low wages. I pay tribute to the Low Pay Unit, which does an excellent job. It recently conducted a survey in the black country, which includes my constituency, and found that 70 per cent. of vacancies dealt with by jobcentres and elsewhere carried wages of less than £4 an hour, and that in 25 per cent. of cases the figure was less than £3 an hour.
How would any of us like to be earning that kind of money? How can a person live on such wages? Even if the wife is in work—and women are likely to be earning not all that much—how can parents bring up their children free from poverty and deprivation?
Employers are exploiting the unemployment situation, knowing full well that what I have said is true. People are so keen to stop being jobless that they are prepared to accept what is on offer. There is no doubt that such employers have been encouraged by the Government through the abolition of the wages councils, the constant emphasis on deregulation, and so on. The blame for inflation is put entirely on high wages. This produces a climate of opinion in which employers can offer wages at the levels I have mentioned.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am following my hon. Friend's case with interest. Does he agree that we should be concerned not only with the high levels of unemployment but also with how joblessness affects individuals, families and communities? It appears that there is almost an acceptance of the current levels of unemployment. Individuals, families and communities are being destroyed. I am thinking in particular of young people, many of whom, in their twenties or thirties, have not worked since leaving school. Let us consider all the problems that will arise for such young people thinking about marriage.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is right. One cannot be complacent about the situation in my area—far from it —and my hon. Friend's area has been damaged far more than mine. It has been devastated by unemployment and all that goes with it. I noted that one or two Conservative Members were not listening to my hon. Friend. As he said, the fact that over 50 or 60 per cent. of school leavers know that they have no chance of getting a job, and that that will apply to their siblings because there will be no jobs for years on end, should shame us all, and especially the Government.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I share the hon. Gentleman's acute distress about the large number of people who want to work but cannot find work. However, he implies that there should be a minimum wage below which work should not be advertised. What does he regard as an appropriate minimum, and what effect would it have on job opportunities?

Mr. Winnick: I will not give a figure, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am about to say. He would not wish to work for the sort of wages that I have mentioned: he would not dream of doing so. I do not want to personalise the matter, but if he has children, the last thing he would want when they grow up—if they are not already grown up—would be for them to be in such a situation.
We must remember that we are dealing with our fellow citizens. We can argue about whether there should be a minimum wage and what it should be, but we should be concerned not only about high unemployment but about the absolute poverty wages on which so many people are forced to live. No Conservative Member inside or outside the Chamber would dream for a moment of trying to live on such wages.
Conservative Members earn the same parliamentary salary, of course, as Opposition Members, but as far as I am aware they have at least one other source of income. That is within the rules, and no one says that it should not be so, but I am dealing with people who, if they can get work, are being offered the sort of wages that I have outlined. It is interesting to note that the survey I mentioned said that one third of the jobs advertised were part-time and, of course, such jobs carry fewer rights.
The matter on which I wish to conclude my speech also relates to employment. I am concerned about the way in which an increasing number of employers are ceasing to recognise trade unions. Establishments that for years, and without any controversy, recognised unions have decided that they will no longer do so. That certainly applies in the print industry and in many other industries. Undoubtedly that means less protection for employees. Take-it-or-leave-it union-free contracts include conditions that people are reluctant to sign, but if they do not sign such contracts, they know the alternative. But so do the employers: hence the offer of such contracts.
I am pleased that yesterday's one-day BBC strike was successful, although Conservative Members may not take that view. Although the BBC has not, fortunately, ceased to recognise unions—and I hope that it never does—it believed that it could offer all kinds of conditions to employees, who would simply take them and lump them. Yesterday's strike showed that those in the BBC are rightly willing to fight for what they believe to be their rights. I hope that management will come to a sensible conclusion and negotiate with the unions.
For the reasons that I have outlined, the job market is poor. People in work are having their protection and rights constantly undermined, and that is clearly being actively encouraged by the Government. We shall certainly return to this topic after the Whitsun recess, because Labour Members think that these issues are important, and we will raise them at every possible opportunity.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My constituency is currently enjoying a remarkable improvement in its health services, with new build in both its major acute hospitals, and considerable reorganisation and improvement in its priority care hospitals. The vast majority of its schools are thoroughly enjoying the much greater freedom given to heads to plan and organise their work and their capital expenditure. In general, morale in Mid-Kent is high.
The subject of my speech may seem trivial in comparison, but there are two or three areas in which the shoe pinches, and I should like to bring them to my right hon. Friend's attention. The first of them is the ridiculous situation that is being allowed to continue—indeed, to worsen—of the differential between duty on drink in the UK and that across the channel. That is nonsense, and it is doing Kent a great deal of harm.
Between 1990 and 1994, the duty on beer in this country increased by 20 per cent. As one might expect, the volume being drunk has declined by 10 per cent. Pubs are closing at the rate of roughly 1,000 a year, or 5 per cent. of the total. If that continues, what will happen to the Prime Minister's dream of keeping alive Britain's traditions, such as warm beer?
To my great disappointment, the Treasury has recently yet again made clear that it is happy, because its take from the duty has increased. I suggest that the increase will be short-term if the goose that lays the golden eggs is allowed to be strangled. I wonder whether the Treasury's accounting on this matter is far too narrow. If pubs continue to close, jobs in the affected areas will decline, and tax income will disappear. The VAT on food sales will decline.
Kent is unquestionably suffering: jobs and businesses are at risk. Some 15.3 per cent. of the take-home beer market is now being satisfied by beer bought on the other side of the channel. It is wholly ridiculous that a Kentish brewer should be forced to set up special outlets in France, where his beer is now handled by French workers. He has done that simply to survive, but those jobs could perfectly well come to Kent.
The issue applies more widely. Crime is being widely stimulated. Technically speaking, it may not be a crime for people to cross the channel up to four times a day to buy what is theoretically a personal allowance of liquor, but we know perfectly well that it is being put on articulated lorries and carried all over the UK. That is bad for the morale, and the morals, of the country as a whole.
It is all very well for Customs and Excise to boast that last year it intercepted 30,000 litres of beer in Birmingham and Manchester and confiscated them. But, as we all know, Customs and Excise catches only a tiny percentage of what is improperly brought in, whether it be drugs or, as in this case, liquor. We are in danger of precipitating a further rapid decline in the British beer trade, the Kentish economy and the standards of morality throughout the country. I hope that the House will not adjourn until we have had a chance to discuss that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear me return to what is regarded as the parochial issue of the channel tunnel rail link. One of the sad aspects of this place is that, if a project is large enough and lasts long enough, those who discuss it inevitably sound extremely boring, because everyone has heard it before.
However, I must raise the matter and say with great sorrow that my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the railways has disappointed Kent in the past few days. A delegation led by Christopher Jackson, Member of the European Parliament, and put together under the auspices of Maidstone borough council, went to see the European Commissioner for the Environment, which was a perfectly proper step to take.
Before the delegation went, my right hon. Friend wrote to Commissioner Paleokrassas to say that it might be helpful for him to know that that meeting with the Member of the European Parliament and "action groups"—it was actually a delegation led by an elected local authority—was out of order. My right hon. Friend gave the Commissioner a series of reasons why he regarded it as improper for the European Commission to take an interest in that matter.
All along, my right hon. Friend the Minister had led us to believe that his objection to the Boxley long tunnel was on grounds of cost. So, if a properly constituted delegation goes to see the European Commissioner to discuss the availability of European funds, it is wholly improper that my right hon. Friend should attempt to shipwreck that delegation before it even started out.
I once received a letter from my right hon. Friend saying that, on environmental grounds, the Boxley long tunnel was preferable, and was being turned down only on the ground of cost. The issue has unanimous local support. The county council, all the district councils, all the conservation bodies, all the parish councils and all the action groups are unanimous on that matter.
I am disappointed, and have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister to seek an assurance that, when the hybrid Bill on the channel tunnel rail link is presented to the House, it will be drafted in a way that will allow the Committee to consider that major alteration in the route. I have a nasty feeling that an attempt will be made to define the terms in which the line is drawn in a way that will exclude that possibility. If so, I and all my friends in Kent will regard that as a gross betrayal of Kent. My right hon. Friend has frequently said that it would be for the Committee to decide, and I hope that he will give me that assurance.
We now know that it is almost certain that trains on the new line will run at 186 miles an hour. For a long time, the Department of Transport has been telling us all that the intention was that, in the early days, trains would run at 140 miles an hour, but that, if improvements in signalling and rolling stock were made later, the speed might rise, but not for a considerable time. We now discover that trains will almost certainly run at 186 miles an hour ab initio.
What is important about that is that it is yet a further example of the greater wisdom of the so-called "amateurs" in my constituency and other parts of Kent, who knew all along that that would almost certainly be the case. I am extremely worried that slippery half-truths are coming out of the Department of Transport.
On a more cheerful note on transport, the Piggyback Consortium has just published an admirable report that suggests that some 400,000 lorry movements a year could be taken off Britain's roads if the relatively small capital works that would be needed to enable piggyback transport to be carried on British railway tracks were carried out. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is interested in that matter, so I hope that he will give it further support. It would be good for us to debate it.
Two events occurred in the House yesterday. First, the chairman of the Association of Directors of Social Services spoke to a Back-Bench Committee in this place. She reiterated the long-established fact that the association supports direct payment to disabled people, to enable those who choose to do so, and are regarded as capable of doing so, to buy in their domiciliary care at their own hand. Secondly, it was announced that 16, 17 and 18-year-olds would be given a voucher to enable them to choose where to spend the money which the Exchequer gives them.
How can the Government any longer resist the case for giving sophisticated, intelligent, disabled people a similar right to choose how to spend their entitlement to public funds at their own hand, directly to employ their own domiciliary staff? It is nonsense to suggest that a 16-year-old makes better use of choosing how to spend


public money than somebody who may have broken his or her back but has kept all his or her intelligence and capacity to manage.
Before we adjourn, we should debate the role that volunteering can play in the life of this nation, if only we would think big rather than relentlessly small. We should provide an opportunity for every young person who wants to, do so to contribute as a volunteer. Nothing would do more to enhance the self-respect of young people, especially those who are unemployed or who, for whatever reason, have had a poor school record. Nothing would give them a better chance to get a reference; take ownership, in a small way, of a part of this society; learn how to work with others; and learn how some other people live. We must revisit that issue.
We must also make it easier for benefit recipients to volunteer. The recent statement on the number of hours that can be worked as a volunteer before putting benefit at risk was disappointing. It was far too discretionary, and did not meet the earlier commitment that the Government would make it much easier for people who want to give back to society in a voluntary capacity the opportunity to do so without losing their benefit.
The chief reason why older people do not volunteer has been shown to be that nobody asks them. The Government could encourage much greater participation of the rapidly growing proportion of our population who have either left employment at the age of 50 or 50-plus, or gone into part-time employment at that age, to contribute to society their skills, experience and knowledge. I know that the Prime Minister is interested in that matter, and that the new Home Office initiative has still to get under way, but the scale of that initiative is pathetically small, and we can and must do better.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not think that we should pass the motion and adjourn on its terms until we have heard an explanation—and perhaps an apology—from the Lord President of the Council for the conduct of one Member of the House. I refer to the Secretary of State for Health. The Lord President will perhaps refer also to two other recent events—the apology by the Minister of State, Department of Social Security and the apology that was made just a few moments ago, although that will not be a part of this debate.
I take no joy in drawing the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the House to what I believe to be another clearly inaccurate statement, made this time by a member of the Cabinet. I hope that the matter will be cleared up before the House goes into recess. Perhaps the Lord President can suggest how the manifest inaccuracy which appears in column 415 of the Official Report of 28 April can be amended satisfactorily.
In a debate about the national health service in London, the Secretary of State for Health referred to the London ambulance service in her second speech of the day. The House will know that I have participated in no fewer than seven Adjournment debates on the subject and have tabled one private notice question—which would have been totally unnecessary if the service were all right. The right hon. Lady tried to explain why she would not give way during her speech. She said:

I have had frequent lengthy discussions with the hon. Gentleman, not least on the Thames and on other occasions. I have learnt from experience that if he wishes to make his point, it is wise to let him make it in his own speech if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker."—[Official Report, 28 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 415.]
The right hon. Lady would not give way to me. Alas, I have not had frequent or lengthy discussions with her, for the simple reason that I have not had any discussions with her at all, other than the incident on the Thames to which she referred and to which I shall come in a minute.
In fact, I could not understand what the right hon. Lady said at the time because she did not say it very loudly. However, I looked at Hansard the next day and read those words. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 29 April, and asked her:
either withdraw your statement that we have had 'frequent lengthy discussions', or jog my memory by stating when and where they took place.
I would be grateful for full replies to these two matters"—
I also raised an ambulance matter—
I raise by a personally signed letter.
Unfortunately, that personally signed letter did not arrive for some time. A couple of days ago, I reminded the Secretary of State that a reply was due. However, I did not receive a letter from the right hon. Lady; I received a letter yesterday from her Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. It referred to the matters about which I complained in only one short paragraph:
I am sure that the references, which were made during the recent Opposition Day Debate, were meant to reflect the continuing interest you have shown in the LAS over recent months, which has been very much appreciated.
I think that it may have been appreciated because I have been talking to officials of South West Thames regional health authority, whose members the right hon. Lady appoints. But that is all that was said.
If people are to be allowed to say that they had frequent lengthy discussions which did not occur and justify their claims by saying, "We knew you were concerned about it", what will happen to standards in public life? That is the sum total of the written replies that I received from the Secretary of State. I think that hon. Members and anyone else would say that that is not good enough. It is an attempt to evade our rights as representatives of the people who send us to this place. What could be less contentious in party terms than the ambulance service?
I felt obliged to raise the matter during this debate. I think that it may be even more serious than I have outlined. Not only did the right hon. Lady speak about events which had not happened; she also suggested that we had had a conversation on the River Thames. I will tell the House about that conversation.
I wrote three letters to the right hon. Lady and her Ministers in September 1992, prior to the collapse of the ambulance service, warning her about the situation. But I did not receive a reply from her. Being of a charitable turn of mind, I thought that perhaps, under instruction—we know that these things happen—she might not have seen my letters.
During a social event which had nothing to do with politics or our offices I saw to it that the right hon. Lady received an envelope from me. We met briefly afterwards and talked about the social event—which, again, had nothing to do with politics or the health service. It was not a discussion; I merely wanted to make sure that the right hon. Lady received a warning in September 1992 before


the ambulance service collapsed, because I thought that she might do something about it. That is the purport of her second reference.
There can be only one explanation—a charitable one —for the sequence of events. It was suggested to me by someone who, when I outlined what had occurred, said, "She must have felt that she had discussions with you because of all the trouble that there has been about the London ambulance service." A long overdue payment of £14 million above budget has been made to the London ambulance service. Perhaps the right hon. Lady had terrible trouble with the Treasury because of my Adjournment debates. I do not know. It may be that that is what she had in mind when she made those references. That is my charitable interpretation.
Surely we must maintain standards in the House. Members of the public are already worried about certain matters which I will not go into now. Two recent unfortunate incidents have been raised today already. Ministers must be very certain that what they say—even off the cuff—is accurate. If it is drawn to their attention that their remarks are inaccurate, they should not weave, duck and dive as I am afraid the right hon. Lady has done. When I gave her the opportunity to make amends for what she had said—perhaps not as pointedly as I should have —that opportunity was not taken.
I have a good maxim: one hates the sin and loves the sinner. Unless we take a stand on matters such as these, authoritarianism will grow. On certain occasions we have to say, "I will take it thus far, but no further". We have now reached that point.
The Secretary of State for Health is not known for her feeling in the House. She frequently relies on copious notes and she does not always give way as one hopes a Minister of the Crown wishing to serve the public and their representatives will do. I think that the Secretary of State, who is knowingly most unpopular, might become a very popular person if she returned to her primary function as the Member of Parliament for Surrey, South-West.

Mr. David Nicholson: The two opening speakers in the debate—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) —raised difficult issues about which there are strong feelings in the country and in the House. They were absolutely right to speak as they did.
It will be a source of some comfort to my hon. Friends and some irritation to Opposition Members to be reminded that this Parliament has nearly three years to run. I think that it is appropriate for the House to delay rising in order to debate some of the themes and practical policies that the Government might pursue both immediately and in the second half of this Parliament.
Since I spoke in the equivalent debate a year ago—my right hon. Friend will recall that speech—much has changed for the better in respect of the real world in Britain, and the actual policies, as opposed to the rumoured policies, being pursued by the Government. The divisive and enervating Maastricht debates are over, although there are some—particularly in the press and to a lesser extent here—who want to continue them.
Economic recovery is gathering pace by the month, and with it, unemployment is falling. Over the past six months,

unemployment has fallen nationally by more than 130,000 to 9.5 per cent; in the south-west region, it has fallen by nearly 12,000 to 8.5 per cent. and in my constituency it has fallen by nearly 100 to 7.7 per cent.. We welcome those trends and hope that they will continue.
The legislative framework is now in place for the deregulation of many of the bureaucratic burdens that have built up on business over the past few years. We must monitor it to ensure that it is the bath water and not the baby that is thrown out. I welcome the initiatives announced yesterday by my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Employment and, particularly in view of the speech by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I hope more effort will be targeted to help those who have been unemployed for a long period. I hope, through my membership of the Select Committee on Employment, to play a part in developing that.
Most important, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill marks a comprehensive, relevant and generally popular move forward on numerous issues of crime, public order and civil liberty. It has been pointed out by the Police Federation that the present Home Secretary is the first to challenge the liberal establishment at the Home Office. That is welcome on the Conservative Benches and in the country.
All those measures are evidence of a Prime Minister and a Government who listen to the country—and not least to hon. Members—and take action, although to read the accounts in some of the newspapers, one would hardly guess it.
For the immediate future, I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for early action to deal with the very great burdens and the anger and concern being imposed by the Child Support Agency. A meeting in my constituency last Friday was attended by about 70 people who were suffering from the exactions of the CSA. I accept that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was Secretary of State, there was very little recognition of the problems as the Bill passed through Parliament, but we now need early and urgent action.
We also need an early statement on the Government's decision following the Bloomfield report on the dental profession. There has been long irritation about what is happening to the dental profession and dentistry.
While I have the opportunity, I should like to impress on the Leader of the House the need for legislation next year to implement the Government's commitments on national parks. I am glad to see in her place my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) who has tried to pioneer that this Session. I hope that we will have Government legislation on both those commitments and to implement the reform of agricultural landlord and tenant legislation for which we have long been pressing.
Let me set out some of the objectives that we must pursue. Continuing economic recovery and the continuing battle against crime must jointly take top priority. Practically every family in the country is concerned about one or the other, and often both. We must not tolerate without good reason any obstacles to that progress.
While I congratulate the Home Secretary on burying most of the Sheehy report on the police—if there were time, one might reflect on whose fingerprints were on that report before it was buried—the criteria I have set are those


against which we must judge the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill which is yet to be considered in detail on the Floor of the House.
Secondly, there is the objective of lower taxation. We must continue to explain that no responsible Government could continue borrowing at the recent rate while the economy was clearly coming out of recession, and that the alternative to tax increases, however regrettable, was deep cuts in public services that our constituents, including their grandparents and children, all value.
We must also keep in the foreground the objective of fiscal equity—that tax burdens should fall and tax reliefs be made in proportion to income. People on middle incomes —by that I mean anything up to the fairly large figure of £30,000 a year—have a legitimate complaint which should be recognised as we are able to reduce taxes.
The third objective, which was the theme of my speech a year ago and the theme of much that I have been saying since, is the continuing need for the legislation that we pass in the House to avoid change for its own sake and set out clearly particular cases for change and the need for improvements.
I have already referred to Sir Patrick Sheehy, but no reference to this policy of consolidation would be complete without a reference to his administrative twin, Sir John Banham. On the Banham issue, which I shall explain is relevant to the European dimension, I can only remind the House that neither of the Opposition parties wants to simplify local government; they want to get rid of one tier so that they can erect a new tier of regional government with powers of taxation, and to that end they want to abolish the counties.
It would be ironic and, indeed, bizarre if one as intelligent, historically minded and traditionalist as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment swept away 1,000 years of history to enable the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to set up his regional socialist satraps.

Mr. David Hanson: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said. He and I have spent many weeks serving on the Committee considering the Local Government (Wales) Bill, in which he voted to sweep away the county councils in Wales. How does he square that argument?

Mr. Nicholson: Wales is a country with a very different history and geography from England, and what we have been sweeping away in Wales are the new structures that were set up some 20 years ago. I have never had any dissent from the sweeping away of the counties of Avon, Humberside and Cleveland that were set up in England 20 years ago. I have paid considerable attention to the need to ensure a degree of consistency in my policy towards English local government and what I have been supporting and voting for in the Local Government (Wales) Committee.
The European point is this: I understand that it is the ambition of both Opposition parties—and a Labour Member explained it to me—to centralise upwards in Europe and to devolve downwards to regional tiers so that, eventually—and they accept that it will take some time —the United Kingdom Government and this Parliament will wither away. The suggestion is that the House would

meet two or three times a year for ceremonial purposes. When I put that point to one of my hon. Friends from Somerset he reminded me that that was the ambition of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who would not even allow the House to meet two or three times a year. The House should recall that as we go into recess.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is a fascinating explanation of Labour party policy, presumably obtained from the hon. Gentleman's own party's headquarters in Smith square. To whom is he attributing this explanation of Labour party policy?

Mr. Nicholson: It is not from Smith square; it was based on more than one conversation with people in the political domain. I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he is as embarrassed as other Opposition Members might be at the suggestion. I am sure it is the logical conclusion of many of the measures to which the Labour party are committed.

Mr. Brown: It is not the logical conclusion of many of the measures to which we are committed; it is not our policy at all. I therefore have to press the hon. Gentleman for an explanation as to where he found this travesty of a policy statement.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention.

Mr. Burns: I thought I might be helpful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholson: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) wants to be consistent. Given his party's views on leaked private conversations on railway trains, he may understand that it would be wrong for my hon. Friend to break the confidence of his conversation with a Labour Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is also wrong for one hon. Member to try to answer on behalf of another hon. Member.

Mr. Nicholson: In view of my hon. Friend's point and your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall leave the matter there. However, I was glad to hear the assurance given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. I made it clear that I was talking about a gradual and long-term process. This House should be aware of the processes supported by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, the Liberal Democrats—who have no representative here today—are rather more open and less coy than the Labour party about their attraction to those processes.
The usual cautionary phrase used when administrative upheaval is proposed is, "If it ain't broke, don't mend it." I remain convinced that that is an essential watchphrase, which has often been applied to the Post Office—that much valued and greatly improved service. There is now unanimity that some changes need to be made in its organisation. I especially welcome those proposed last week by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, first, for Post Office Counters to strengthen the role


of sub-post offices—which are so vital to rural and semi-rural areas—and, secondly, to provide greater commercial freedom for the Royal Mail.
Whether that extension of commercial freedom, which I think all parties accept, and the interests of fair competition require a measure of privatisation is something that we must consider during the consultation period. I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend has provided time for consultation on these complex matters. The fair competition point is valid, which is why I know that there is support for a measure of privatisation. However, we also need to guarantee—not just for a few years, but indefinitely—the commitments on the uniform tariff and the retention and, indeed, improvement of the present collection and delivery service.
On the question of privatised utilities generally, there are one or two tasks that the Government and Parliament should undertake during the second half of this Parliament. Obviously, one of those tasks is to promote vigorously the undoubted successes of privatisation, especially in telecommunications and gas, and even the vast investment now being undertaken in the water industry. I shall have more to say about water later. At the same time, we need to consider some of the difficulties that have arisen, for example, the power of the regulators and the failed diversifications in certain utilities, which was highlighted recently in The Sunday Times.
While all Conservative Members accept that considerable benefits will come from the introduction of competition into the gas industry, there is concern in the south-west at the possible burdening of our constituents with transport costs. I am assured that the benefits from competition will greatly outweigh the transportation costs. We will have to examine that closely. My hon. Friends in the south-west would find the general principle of geographical discrimination unacceptable if, as has been suggested, perhaps in a rather alarmist way, in the Western Morning News, it were to apply to postal, electricity or telephone charges.
There are other, rather more significant, issues relating to the privatised utilities that will not go away—for example, whether the privatised coal industry is being treated fairly in relation to electricity supply. As a Member representing a constituency in the south-west, I am sometimes asked why my constituents and I are interested in the coal industry. I suspect that one reason is that the south-west traditionally has been dependent on agriculture. It is also surrounded by fish and therefore also dependent on the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) well knows. Therefore, there is a fellow feeling with those in the coal industry that this country should not only exploit its skills, professionalism and hard work; it should be able to exploit its natural resources.
Something that is very much of concern in the south-west is the charging system for water. Is it right and justifiable that our constituents in Devon and Cornwall, and my constituents in the extreme west of my constituency, should pay the total cost of clearing up the beaches along the whole south-western peninsula? I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that those issues will not go away. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I will return to them again and again.
The country is now facing the European elections. Whatever the speculation in certain section of the press, the Conservative party is united on the programme spelt out by

Margaret Daly, the Member of the European Parliament for Somerset and West Dorset, and other candidates, which is to keep Britain's veto in Europe, to support a Europe that does less and does it better, to work constantly for a level playing field in Europe, to ensure proper enforcement of EC laws across Europe, to protect Britain's budget rebate and to fight fraud in Europe.
Conservative Members are united behind all those matters, and in many of them our views are in sharp distinction to those of Opposition Members. It would be perverse if, as a way of protesting against certain measures from national Government, people were to elect large numbers of Liberal Democrat or Labour MEPs whose views on European issues are light years away from the views of the bulk of their constituents. That would be regrettable and I hope that the country will recoil from that possibility.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The House should not adjourn because matters relating to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill remain outstanding. I want to raise two aspects of the Bill that have not been referred to during the debates over recent weeks. The first is a statement by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, which appears in Hansard on 29 April. I intend to read that statement twice because I want to draw the attention of the House to the ambiguity of what he said and show why disablement groups may have been misled. I shall read the same words on each occasion.
The Minister said:
As I said, there is an established handling procedure and, however strongly any of us may feel about the issue, we cannot deviate from it. That is not to say that the Government are not listening with care and sympathy to those who are actively campaigning for the Bill and properly using every opportunity to ensure that it reaches the statute book and that the thinking behind it is widely understood in the country outside.
That is my first reading of those words. I shall now re-read exactly the same words:
As I said, there is an established handling procedure and, however strongly any of us may feel about the issue, we cannot deviate from it. That is not to say that the Government are not listening with care and sympathy to those who are actively campaigning for the Bill and properly using every opportunity to ensure that it reaches the statute book and that the thinking behind it is widely understood in the country outside.
There is a distinction between the way in which I read those words the first and then the second time. In the first, the Government are interpreted as using every opportunity to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book, with the thinking behind it widely understood in the country. On the second reading, the interpretation is that the people outside are taking those actions.
I put it to the Leader of the House that the first interpretation was the one that was accepted by the disablement groups and that led them to believe that the Bill would be supported by the Government as late as 29 April this year. That was nine days after, according to the Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), he had authorised his officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to draft amendments on 20 April 1994. He authorised the drafting of the amendments on 20 April, yet on 29 April he told Parliament, in the words that I first used, that the Government supported the legislation, obviously subject to some amendment. It is in that that much of the misunderstanding has arisen.
If one goes on to quote other remarks made the Minister in the debate, they seem to confirm only the first interpretation that I put on the words, because at the end he said:
The Government are determined to continue with that progress, and we are determined also to look at the provisions of the Bill and to see what common ground can be established between the Government and the Bill's sponsors…We will come to Report next week with an attitude which firmly reflects and reinforces the commitments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and we will pursue the remaining stages of the Bill in that spirit. We will return to the issue next Friday, and the Government will continue to study and reflect on the comments which undoubtedly will be made in those discussions and, in due course, we will make clear to the House our conclusions about the further consideration of the matters."—[Official Report, 29 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 514–16.]
That was nine days after the instruction was given to Parliamentary Counsel to draft those wrecking amendments.
My second point relates to the ruling of Madam Speaker on 11 May. Madam Speaker made a ruling on the Floor of the House, using the same language as she used in a letter to me. So in the light of that, I feel that, in so far as Madam Speaker said that she was breaking from orthodoxy on those matters and was prepared to rule on the Floor, I am at liberty to quote only those parts of her correspondence with me to which she referred on the Floor. She places emphasis on one particular word. The letter reads:
In the light of developments since I received your letter, as a result of which the House is in possession of the facts and has received an apology, I have concluded that I would not be justified in myself granting precedence for this matter's further con sideration."—
"myself ' being Madam Speaker.
What Madam Speaker is therefore saying to me—I must make it clear to the House that, on principle, I have not discussed that ruling with Madam Speaker or had any contact with her office, and that I can speak quite freely, as I am uncompromised by any discussion—and to the House is that she was not in a position to grant the motion precedence. However, in the letter, she goes on to say:
My decision in no way reflects your right"—
my right—
to seek ways to pursue this matter yourself.
She is saying that I can pursue the matter. There are only a few ways open to me to do that in terms of bringing a motion. Either I win a ballot—I have never won one of those ballots, or perhaps I did, in 1985—or I would have to convince my political party, which, in the circumstan-ces, would be improper, that it should table the motion on a Supply day. I believe that, technically, it could. The problem with that is that the moment a political party is seen to be tabling a motion of that nature, it politicises a matter that should be dealt with on a cross-party basis. I think that it is impossible for the Labour party to table such a motion, because it has implications for procedure in the future when those matters arise, as they will, no doubt, again and again.
If my political party cannot table a motion, and I cannot table a motion, and Madam Speaker is unprepared to give the matter precedence, the only remaining person in a position to table such a motion is the Leader of the House. I believe that there is a responsibility on him to table that motion, and I shall explain why.
I was astonished, as I said at the time, by Madam Speaker's ruling. What I did not say at the time, however,

was that I understood it. In my view, there was a reason why it was made. I am not challenging it in any way. I am seeking to set out for the House why I think that that decision was taken. Many hon. Members had not thought through the implications of me bringing my complaint for contempt. If Madam Speaker had ruled that the motion be given precedence, and because the Government cannot vote against the Speaker, the Government, including Ministers and the payroll vote, would have had to go into the Lobby upholding the decision of Madam Speaker to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. My view is that that would have been impossible to do. Ministers could not have gone into the Lobby upholding the recommendation to the House, based on the Speaker giving precedence to the motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, because, in effect, the Government would have been undermining the very credibility of one of their Ministers.
That brings me to an interesting consideration. If the payroll vote—I do not use the word pejoratively—and Ministers cannot vote against a motion that is given precedence to go to the Privileges Committee, where a Minister is involved, because it undermines the credibility of Ministers, the Privileges Committee system no longer works. It means that the Speaker will always have to rule in the way that she did on that occasion. The Speaker has no option.
I can see by the facial expression of the Leader of the House that, perhaps, I am not making it as clear as I should. I am arguing that if the motion had been given precedence by Madam Speaker, he and his colleagues would have had to have gone into the Lobby upholding the motion to refet the matter to the Privileges Committee. That would have been an untenable position for a Minister. I do not think that it is possible to do that. Therefore, there must be another way of dealing with the matter. My view is that, in indicating support for that motion, they would be saying to the Minister that he would have to resign.
I am arguing that, had Madam Speaker given the motion precedence, knowing that Ministers would have had to have gone into the Lobby in support of referring the matter to the Privileges Committee, she would effectively have been securing the resignation of the Minister involved. I do not think that the Speaker of the House of Commons should be placed in that position. That is what would have happened if she had ruled, or announced privately to the Government that she intended to rule, in favour of the motion being given precedence. I believe that the Minister involved would not have survived another hour in post. He would have had to have gone, because the inevitable consequence would have been that the Leader of the House would have had to have gone into the Lobby to support the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee, and thus undermined the credibility of the Minister.
An important principle is involved here. If we cannot bring contempt complaints against Ministers because the Speaker is placed in an invidious position, the procedure must be changed.
Another matter is involved, which will inevitably come before the House in the coming months—the Scott inquiry. I am not talking about this same Scott, but the other Scott inquiry. There again, the issue is the deliberate misleading of the House of Commons. I do not think that I am being silly in saying that some of us are following those proceedings with great interest. If it can be proved during the inquiry that Ministers have deliberately misled the


House, the issue of contempt will arise again. If a complaint is made, will Madam Speaker be placed in exactly the same position as before—a position in which, if she rules that the matter be given precedence, knowing that Ministers of the Crown will have to support her in the Division Lobby, she is in effect sacking those Ministers before they have even been given the right to be heard?
That is what worries me about the whole procedure. I do not know whether I have explained the matter clearly enough; I know that many hon. Members find it complicated, but I have reflected on it long and hard following the ruling to which I have referred.
I believe—in a nutshell—that the Speaker of the House of Commons should not be compromised in the way that I have described. When the Procedure Committee examines the issues, it may well want to consider what might have happened if Madam Speaker had ruled that the motion should be given precedence. I do not believe that, if that procedure had been followed through, the motion would ever have reached the Floor of the House: the Minister would have resigned as soon as the Speaker had notified the Government Whips of her decision.
I merely ask that the matter be considered. I know that it will not be considered before our short recess, but I hope that the House authorities will note what I have said.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Debates such as this raise many lively issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) spoke of the problems of Bosnia. I do not think that anyone would dispute the fact that a terrible tragedy is going on there, but there is also a terrible problem in Rwanda: I believe that more people have been killed there in the past month than in the entire Bosnian campaign. The tragedy of Bosnia is being repeated in other parts of the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) referred to the Child Support Agency, a subject that I raised just before Easter, and I agree with everything that he said. It is no good for the Government to carry on as though everything were all right; what began as a good idea has now become a minefield. Many of us have encountered cases in which former partners who divorced amicably have been set against each other as a result of the agency's actions. I am also displeased by its inefficiency: it seems to take an interminable time to reply to representations made not only by constituents but by Members of Parliament.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the longer the difficulties that he mentions are allowed to fester, the more the legitimate objectives of the agency and of the Child Support Act 1991 will be undermined?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I entirely agree. One of the points that concern me is that, although the intention of the Act was to catch wayward fathers who contributed nothing to their ex-wives and children, the only people who come to me for advice are those who are already paying their dues and are now being asked to pay a great deal more than they can afford. I have not yet encountered a case in which a wayward father has been brought to book and made to meet his responsibilities.
I take part in debates such as this quite often because they give hon. Members a chance to talk about anything they choose and to draw attention to matters that they

consider important and worthy of debate before the House breaks for a recess. Today I want to raise an issue that I have raised before. I make no apology for raising it again, because no one seems to have taken much notice of anything that I said previously. Accordingly, I shall continue to press the point.
I wish to discuss affordable housing, which I consider enormously important. I must first declare an interest as my wife chairs a housing association and is also a member of the Housing Corporation. I stress, however, that she did not write my speech: the responsibility is entirely mine.
More and more housing association tenants are caught in what I believe is known as the poverty trap. I fear that we are creating a growth in the dependency culture, which cannot be a good thing. We should encourage people to be independent. Of course we have great responsibilities in relation to the disabled, the elderly and the sick, whom we must help as much as we possibly can, but young people should be encouraged to go out to work and to help themselves rather than sitting back in the belief that the state should provide for them.
I find it depressing that people who try to help themselves by taking low-paid jobs often find that they are worse off than those on benefit. It makes no sense for people to be better off if they do not work than if they go out and look for employment. I also wonder about children who are brought up in such an environment: seeing that their parents are better off staying at home cannot be very good for their future. We must try to change that.
Housing associations are now the main providers of new rented accommodation. Not so long ago, the Select Committee on the Environment conducted a thorough study of the problem and we debated its report in the House earlier this year. The Committee warned of serious consequences if the housing association grant rate fell below 67 per cent. It has now fallen to 62 per cent., and those involved in housing fear that the Government have set themselves the objective of a 55 per cent. rate in 1995–96. If there is any reduction in the grant, the number of tenants dependent on housing benefit is likely to increase and more and more tenants will be caught in the poverty trap.
The National Federation of Housing Associations has just published a valuable document which should be compulsory reading for anyone interested or involved in housing. It makes a number of points, some of them very compelling. It states, for instance, that if we move away from the system of "bricks and mortar subsidy" towards a system of targeting support for individuals, the cost of housing benefit will increase substantially. Because housing association grant is a capital grant paid towards the commencement of a project, and because the housing benefit bill accrues over the years, the comparison of direct savings and costs is difficult to quantify. However, I do not believe that such a change of policy will achieve any saving in public expenditure.
The report also points out that lower grant rates lead to a growth in benefit dependency and work disincentive. The federation has proved that the proportion of working households among new tenants fell from 32 per cent. in 1989–90 to 25 per cent. in the first half of 1993–94. No doubt that is partly due to the disincentives involved in being in work and paying high housing association rents. The federation forecasts that if an average 55 per cent. grant rate is introduced in 1995–96 working households taking up the new housing association tenancies will be


much worse off than they were in 1993. It forecasts that their rents will be 34 per cent. higher and that they will have to earn £220 a week to escape the poverty trap. That compares with £180 in 1993. The disincentive to work is therefore £40 a week greater. It forecasts that those people will be eligible for 41 per cent. more housing benefit and that the percentage of them paying rents that the National Federation of Housing Associations defines as unaffordable will increase from 73 per cent. to 83 per cent.
I have enormous regard for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction because he knows more about housing than any other right hon. or hon. Member and he cares deeply about the plight of the homeless and of people who have to live in rented property. In March 1993 he said that
the poverty trap is a ditch rather than a cliff. It is perfectly possible to clamber out the other side, or indeed to leap the ditch at one bound if a reasonably well-paid job can be found.
Evidence from the National Federation of Housing Associations shows that the poverty trap is not a ditch but a pit from which it is impossible to leap.
With a national average grant rate of 55 per cent., it is expected that between 1993 and 1996 the trend for working households will worsen. The federation's booklet suggests that rents will increase by 34 per cent. and that people will need to earn a further £40 a week to escape the poverty trap, as against £180 in 1993. It also states that the percentage of income spent on rent will increase from 29.4 per cent. to 33.1 per cent. and that, for the 83 per cent. of those paying rents which are unaffordable according to the NFHA's affordability criteria, housing benefit costs per working household will increase by 41 per cent. There will be a further decline in the percentage of working households among new tenants. All of that shows the growing disincentives to work which result from significant rent increases and their interface with the welfare benefit system. That is a serious problem.
Housing is essential to the national well-being. The construction industry should be given a boost. Too many construction workers are unemployed. If we could get them back to work, not only would more new houses become available for people who are desperately anxious to be rehoused, but people would be taken off the unemployment register and put back into productive work, which would benefit the Exchequer. We would spend less on unemployment benefit and the tax revenue generated would go to the Exchequer. It would also be an enormous help in the fight against homelessness.
I have said it before, but I say it again: I become depressed when in certain parts of London I see so many people sleeping rough. I know that some choose that way of life, but some are homeless because they have nowhere else to go. The problem exists in every other capital city in the world. Nevertheless, it should strike at people's social consciences. I hope that, if more affordable houses are built for rent, we shall see a notable drop in homelessness in this country.
I urge the Government to ensure that the Housing Corporation is given adequate funds to continue with the main task of providing affordable housing for people in need. Before we rise for the spring recess, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will assure me on that point.

Mr. David Hanson: I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) because there is much on which we agree. Many more homes for rent should be built and local authorities should be given the opportunity to be a leading force in getting people back to work, creating jobs and providing a socially useful function. I hope that the Leader of the House will take on board some of those comments, even though we may disagree on some of the issues that were raised.
The debate has been wide ranging and interesting topics have been raised. The topic that I want to raise is not debated often in the House, but I hope that it will be of interest and that it will stimulate a response from the Lord President.
I was particularly keen to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and of my right hon Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, with which I agreed.
Perhaps the most amazing speech this afternoon, which caused me great enjoyment, was made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), whose wide-ranging speech provided another example of a Conservative Member stacking up alibis for the day when he has to face the general election. As the hon. Gentleman has a majority of just 3,300, I can understand why he spent so much time shoring up his rear in preparation for that inevitable general election.
The issue of solvent and volatile substance abuse was last raised in the House on 20 December 1988 by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry). I raise the issue today because I understand that the Lord President is chairing a committee of Ministers investigating drug misuse generally and ways in which the Government can respond. On 5 May, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), stated that the central drugs co-ordination unit had two major tasks:
first, to ensure that departmental policies are planned, developed and implemented in England with a clear strategic framework and, secondly, to take the lead in devising an effective basis for local co-ordination of action to tackle the drugs problem."—[Official Report, 5 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 934]
This issue is not often raised in the House, but it affects every constituency in this country and it should be discussed today because there will be few other occasions on which to do so.
The problem is widespread. In 1991, the last year for which figures are available from St. George's hospital and medical school in London, there were 122 deaths in the United Kingdom from solvent and volatile substance abuse, compared with only two in 1971. Since 1971, 1,237 people have died from such abuse. On average, the number of deaths has risen by 5.5 per cent. per year. Since 1985, there has not been one year in which fewer than 100 people have died as a result of solvent and volatile substance abuse.
Since the hon. Member for Wellingborough last addressed this topic in the House, an estimated 600 further deaths have occurred in the UK as a result of solvent and volatile substance abuse. Every week, there are many instances of such deaths in hon. Members' constituencies. Only this week, I read press reports of a 15-year-old boy from Congleton who suffered a massive heart attack following the inhalation of a cocktail of lethal solvents and


volatile substances. A 14-year-old Glasgow boy was found unconscious in the town centre following abuse of volatile substances. Efforts to revive him failed and he died shortly afterwards. In Crawley last week, a teenage girl suffered a massive heart attack after inhaling hairspray—one of the products that people do not generally associate with solvent and volatile substance abuse.
In constituencies throughout the UK people are inhaling and using a range of products to achieve their kicks. Those products are readily available in shops and other outlets. It is well-known that glues are used, but Tipp-Ex, felt tip pens, lighter fuel, hairspray and all aerosols which use butane gas are being abused by young people. That is why it is important that the Government should deal positively with the problem in the committee that the Lord President is chairing. I appreciate why it has been set up and I hope that it will act positively to tackle solvent and volatile substance abuse because the death toll will continue to rise from the 122 deaths last year unless action is taken.
The problem of solvent and volatile substance abuse is affecting children as young as eight or nine, who are in primary schools, and the bulk of the 122 deaths in 1991 —the latest year for which we have statistics—were of young people in their teenage years. Of those 122 deaths, 38 per cent. were of people identified as first-time users. That means that the first time they abused a substance it resulted in their death. That makes even more urgent the need for the Government to tackle the problem before the Spring Adjournment, and to address it during the deliberations of the Committee that the Leader of the House is to chair.
One worrying aspect is the fact that many people, and even many hon. Members listening to the debate, do not recognise that the problem exists. I want to bring it before the House before the Adjournment so as to inform the House that the problem exists. We could go back to any of our homes tonight and find in the garage, the bathroom, the kitchen and the living room 50 or 60 products which can be abused, and which are being abused right now by young people somewhere.
In 1991, 33 per cent. of the deaths were attributed to the inhalation of cigarette lighter fuel, which is commonly available over the counter in many shops. Glue, which is also commonly available, claimed 11 per cent. of the victims, and Tipp-Ex thinner, which many of us still have in our offices, claimed a further 10 per cent. Such products are readily available, and it is important that when the Leader of the House and the committee are considering those matters they address the issues in a positive manner. Before my time is up I wish to raise a couple of points which I hope that the committee—and, in due course, the House—will consider.
First, a strong Government strategy is needed. I welcome the Government's policies and proposals, and the publicity campaign on solvent and volatile substance abuse that they have undertaken in the past couple of years. One of the commonest complaints that I have heard, both as a Member of Parliament and as someone who worked in the field before being elected to the House, was the tragic statement made to me by many parents after their child had died: "If only I had known what the symptoms were; if only I had known that those products could be abused, I might have been able to do something to help." I hope that the ministerial committee will take seriously the issue of parental awareness.
Secondly, one of the main reasons why young people are drawn into solvent and volatile substance abuse is peer group pressure. It is hard to resist when one's friends and colleagues ask one to do something. In our time we have probably all had a cigarette behind the bike sheds. It is hard to resist the pressures. With solvent and volatile substance abuse, however, when some people are forcing and encouraging others to take part in such activities, the difference is that people can die from their first opportunity to abuse.
I therefore wish to impress on the Minister the need for a skills-based programme in schools to ensure that people understand what the products are and why they should not abuse them. That would give them the self-confidence and skills to resist peer group pressure, and to understand and resist solvent and volatile substance abuse, which can often lead to further drug abuse.
Retailers, too, should be considered. All the products that I have mentioned can be bought in any shop in London, in any village or, indeed, anywhere in this country. Deaths are occurring in every part of the United Kingdom. We need a strong programme of retailer education so that the existing legislation—the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter)—is enforced by retailers and so that they know which products are likely to be abused and should not be sold to people under 18 who may possibly abuse them.
We also need to ensure that the statutory services—the police, the youth services, general practitioners and the many people at the interface with young people liable to volatile substance abuse—know about the causes, the symptoms and the remedies, so as to help ensure that young people do not get involved in the first place.
I raise the matter because, although I know that the Lord President would not allow that to happen, it is tempting for a ministerial committee investigating drug abuse to concentrate on heroin, crack, cannabis and so on, and on the important problem of co-ordination. However, I remind the Minister that solvent and volatile substance abuse is killing more people in the United Kingdom today than all those other forms of drug abuse put together. It is a major problem, and the Government must deal with it.
In conclusion, I ask the Lord President a couple of questions. Will the committee be able to consider what action the Government will take to ensure that the problem of solvent and volatile substance abuse is central to their overall strategy for the prevention of drug misuse? Many different Departments are now involved. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health and the Home Office all have a finger in the pie. Those Departments are all doing their own thing, but there is a lack of co-ordination on solvent and volatile substance abuse. I hope that the ministerial committee will be able to overcome that. Perhaps responsibility could be given to Ministers for such aspects as retailer training and the training of professionals, and for ensuring that schools are aware of the issues. If there is no ministerial accountability and responsibility, the issue will get lost within the wider problem of drug abuse, and within the general committee work.
This may be a strange thing for an Opposition Member to say, but I welcome what the Government have done so far. I hope that before the House rises, and certainly when the committee is examining the issue, the Minister will not forget that this week, somewhere in Britain, two or three


people will die as a result of solvent and volatile substance abuse. The problem needs to be tackled as part of an overall co-ordinated strategy. It needs money, ministerial accountability and involvement, and I am sure that the Minister will provide that. Today is not the time to try to score party political points, but before we rise for the recess I want to ensure that the Minister knows that, although the matter has not been raised in the House since 1988, it is still important. I hope that what I have said today will at least help to form the agenda for the meetings that the Minister will hold in the forthcoming weeks and months.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: You will not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I intend to raise the issue of the channel tunnel rail link before we rise for the Spring Adjournment, because the issue must be addressed. First, I express my thanks and those of my constituents to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The House will recall that, in January, he announced the route of the channel tunnel rail link from London St. Pancras to Cheriton, near the tunnel mouth. However, my right hon. Friend made exceptions for Pepper Hill and Ashford.
We all know that in the House we like to make great decisive announcements. The Secretary of State could well have said, "Here is my decision from St. Pancras to the tunnel. Here is the route, and everybody else will have to live with it, because the project is so important." However, my right hon. Friend had the courage to say instead, "No, I do not accept the case at two points on the route. I shall take the flak for not having made a final decision, and I shall instruct Union Railways, the subsidiary of British Rail, to examine those points again."
Union Railways did that, under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, and the process was carried through to success. Union Railways came up with a solution that has been accepted with delight and gratitude by local residents.
I now look forward to an early decision on the intermediate international station on the high-speed rail link. I shall state the case for Ebbsfleet as the international domestic station. It is ideally sited to serve eastern England and the counties to the south and east of London, which are so well served by the M25. Such a station would draw off the traffic that would otherwise go to central London for passengers to meet the high-speed trains to the continent.
If the station were placed at Ebbsfleet, it would also assist and serve the developing area of the east Thames corridor, for which the Government have expressed such enthusiasm. For my constituents at Northfleet and Gravesend, the proposal for Ebbsfleet station would bring thousands of jobs related to the development, in light industry, in the distributive trades and—this is my particular enthusiasm—those associated with a European conference and exhibition centre to be located near Northfleet. Such a development would also bring new roads to the area, such as a Northfleet bypass and links to the A2, and new developments, notably the proposed Bluewater park.
It will not surprise my hon. Friends that, because of the severe impact of the channel tunnel rail link on my constituency, I still have some other concerns. The plans as

announced trap five properties between the line of the channel tunnel rail link and the A2—four properties at Longview, off the Henhurst road, Cobham, and The Lodge at Scalers Hill, Cobham. The lives of those constituents will be made increasingly intolerable as the channel tunnel rail link is constructed and then operated, and will be affected by the intensification of traffic on the A2, which is likely to be widened towards their properties.
The Department of Transport, quite logically, has responsibility for both the channel tunnel rail link and the A2, but it has passed the buck to Union Railways. The response of Union Railways to my representations on behalf of my constituents in those five households and to the pleas of the residents is deafening silence. That is not good enough. We want action now, either by voluntary purchase or by final compensation, to put my constituents out of their misery. I hope that we shall see a response to that.
There remains a major environmental challenge to my constituency. The plan proposes to cut through Ashenbank wood—a piece of ancient woodland and a site of special scientific interest—and Cobham park, which is a heritage site laid out by Repton. Concerns have been expressed about those plans by a wide range of environmental organisations and notably Cobham Hall Heritage Trust, the National Trust, the Countryside Commission, the Woodlands Trust and the Kent Trust for Nature Conservation. Concerns have also been expressed by Cobham parish council, Gravesham borough council and Kent county council. Those have been especially effectively expressed by the borough and county councillor for Cobham parish, Frank Gibson.
An imaginative assessment of the environmental impact and costed alternative proposals has been drawn up by Dr. Nigel Haig, a member of Cobham parish council. That is being reviewed at my request by engineers and consultants of Gravesham council. I ask my right hon. Friends at the Department of Transport to instruct Union Railways to engineer definitive alternative proposals for consideration. As those all involve modifications of vertical alignments, it would not breach the safeguarding arrangements already announced.
The Member of the European Parliament for West Kent, Mr. Ben Patterson, has already drawn the matter to the attention of the European Commissioner for environmental matters, Mr. Paleokrassas. A member of the Commissioner's cabinet has already been to Gravesham to see the problems for himself and to report back. If we can have a clear, environmentally preferable alternative worked out in detail, we should be able to harness financial contributions from the European Community and elsewhere for those improvements at that environmentally sensitive site.
I should also like to raise another issue that the House should consider before we rise for the Spring recess. We should look at the cumbersome working of the law courts in helping people to recover debt. I should like to bring to the attention of the House a particular case that has arisen in my constituency.
It concerns a constituent trying to enforce a small debt on which judgment was found in her favour. She managed separately to identify the defendant's goods stored in a warehouse. Through the legal process, she reissued the previous warrant on 6 August 1992 and the court bailiff


went to the storage warehouse and took walking possession of the goods. That apparently means that the goods cannot be released to the defendant.
As a layman, I would have assumed that the goods would have been used to repay my constituent for the debts that had been properly identified in court, but not a bit of it. The defendant appealed on 18 August against the warrant. It was therefore suspended. My constituent appealed. The appeal was heard 17 days later, on Friday 4 September. The warrant, not surprisingly, was effectively renewed and costs were granted in her favour. So she faxed the court asking for a direction on the disposal of the goods which she had previously identified.
Apparently, a fax is inadmissible in court and, by that time, it was too late on a Friday afternoon to do anything about it, given the times within which courts work. So she had to hand-deliver the request on the following Monday, 7 September. That hand-delivered request in turn was mislaid by the court. In the meantime, the walking possession had lapsed on 4 September, the previous Friday. It could only be renewed by a bailiff responding to a court instruction, in turn responding to a request by the plaintiff.
Three days were lost because, in a Dickensian manner, a fax was inadmissible. Further delay ensued, because the request was lost. Yet another delay would have ensued because bailiffs take time to react to instructions. In the meantime, taking advantage of that courthouse charade, the defendant whipped along to the warehouse on Wednesday 9 September, collected his goods and has since disappeared.
After all that rigmarole, time and expense, my constituent is left back at square one, empty-handed. All she has had is an apology that her request for a direction of disposal was mislaid by the court, and a bland statement refusing to accept that her position had been prejudiced by the actions of the court. That is not justice: it is cumbersome, Dickensian farce. Where is the redress for my constituent? The House should look again at the practical reality of the administration of justice.

Mr. John Spellar: Before the House goes into recess, we ought to consider two serious matters which cause not only inconvenience, but serious injustice, to many citizens throughout the country, and which proposals from Ministers ought to address.
The first matter is one to which I referred earlier during business questions: wheel-clamping on private land. It is quite scandalous that it is now nearly a year—in fact, the year will be up during the recess—since the closing date for submissions to the Government's consultation document on wheel-clamping. Everyone recognises that it is not a simple and easy problem to deal with, but it will not get any easier or more simple if we wait another year. The Home Office ought to be bringing in firm proposals to deal with the menace.
Every week, we still hear examples of outrages being committed by cowboy clampers. Only last week in Birmingham, a gentleman had to go down to the hospital where his wife was seriously ill after having had a relapse. He parked on some double yellow lines and put a note on his windscreen saying in which ward he was visiting his wife. He came out to drive home to tell his children that

their mother was dying, and found that he had been wheel-clamped. The staff at the hospital had to have a whip round to get the wheel-clamp removed.
In the centre of Birmingham, there is a notorious site opposite the Digbeth bus station, which is deliberately left open and, if anybody parks there for more than two minutes, the clampers are out and charging their fines. It is simply entrapment. Again, that is the sort of abuse that ought to be dealt with. The Home Office, in a good document on private wheel-clamping, recognised many of the problems, but, unfortunately, has still not come up with a solution. The matter should not wait any longer, and once the year has passed, it should come up with urgent solutions.
The issue which has already been aired two or three times in the debate, and which concerns nearly all hon. Members and their constituents, is that of the Child Support Agency. Before we go into recess, the Secretary of State for Social Security should come to the House with substantial proposals for a major overhaul, or for the abolition, of the Child Support Agency. The rising tide of public protest against the agency has continued unabated.
I have my suspicions that the Minister was hoping that the protest would die down, and that he would have been able to continue with the agency. He may also have hoped that the proposals put forward by some, that it is really an argument between men and women, would begin to win the day. I always thought that that was a fallacious argument, since, at most of the meetings that I have attended, as I am sure is the case with the meetings to which other hon. Members have already referred, about 40 to 50 per cent. of the audience have been women who are finding that their relationships and lives have been disrupted. It was therefore fallacious to try to make out that it was a straightforward argument between the sexes. That argument has not taken off.
We are finding that enormous problems are being caused to many families by the Child Support Agency. One problem is the administration, which has already been referred to. I have had letters this week—the middle of May—referring to my correspondence at the end of March. I have also received letters saying that I would get a reply within 10 days; that seems to be the new reply. We await the result of that with interest. All hon. Members have found inordinate delays. It is difficult for us to make progress on constituency cases when we face such delays, especially when constituents have arrears building up all the time.
Not only we but our constituents face such delays, which they find frustrating to the point of unreasonableness. They get neither timely nor sensible replies from the CSA about their problems. As we have all found, when we get replies, the CSA gives a long recitation of Government policy and says little that answers our specific questions about the problems of an individual case. In the past few weeks, there has been a slight improvement, perhaps as a response to criticisms in the Chamber. Too often we do not get detailed replies to the problems that we have raised.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has conducted his campaign on the Child Support Agency for so long. What does he think of a letter that I received last week from the manager of the Child Support Agency in Falkirk? The manager said that he refused to answer


detailed questions that I had submitted to him on behalf of a constituent in my role as a Member of Parliament, because of the rules of confidentiality.

Mr. Spellar: Perhaps that official needs to go on a training course, although not at one of the luxury hotels at which too many courses have been held.
It is enormously unfortunate that many of the agencies seem to take a cavalier attitude to Members of Parliament, and do not seem to have a full understanding of our role in these matters. That is not a partisan comment; many Conservative Members have experienced similar difficulties in getting straightforward and courteous replies from the agencies. I am sure that that point is being taken on board, and I hope that we shall start to get an improvement in the service that we are being offered.
Even if we could improve the administration, and even if the replies started to come through faster, only the superficial part of the problem would have been dealt with. The core of the problem is the way in which the agency has been set up under the Child Support Act 1991.
That outrages not only those who are directly affected and their families, but many other citizens who read about the CSA. They perceive the fundamental unfairness of the way in which the system operates. What no one can understand is how the CSA has been able to overturn settlements that have been agreed between the parties and ratified by the courts. They count for nothing when the CSA measures them against its criteria.
People who make sensible settlements in the light of the existing law find that that counts for nothing and is being torn up. People have often transferred property; I know that there are arguments about whether they have transferred the debt as well and how that debt is being met by the public purse. However, many people transferred not only property, but all the debts in a final settlement, as advised by their solicitors and financial advisers, according to the law of the time. They then find that the settlement is being torn up. That puts enormous pressure on their families, and creates enormous tension, as one can imagine, between previous partners.
People also find that little of the benefit goes to the children. As has been mentioned a number of times in the House, 90 per cent. of the money goes not to the children but to the Treasury. The letters CSA do not stand for Child Support Agency, but for Chancellor Support Agency.
Of course the guardians of the public purse have a legitimate interest in the matter; everyone understands that. However, the serious burden that is falling on individuals means that there is effectively a tax on divorce and separation, which has been introduced heavily and without the transitional arrangements that have attended other taxes. As we changed from the rates to the poll tax, and then to the council tax, there were transitional arrangements to ensure that the burden did not fall too heavily and precipitately on individuals. There are no such transitional arrangements here.
Indeed, because of the delays in the operations of the Child Support Agency, almost by definition individuals are building up substantial debts. As one can imagine, that is worrying and frightening for people who have been prudent, and have never put themselves into debt before. They now find that, if they are paying off one debt to the CSA, they are concerned about whether they will be able

to pay their mortgage and whether their second family will be made homeless. Those are real and frightening concerns for people who have never before been in such a position. Those concerns should and could have been taken account of if the Government had only listened to others.
The Government should have listened, for example, to the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), when the CSA was first considered. They should have listened to the Select Committee on Social Security, which took the trouble to produce a special interim report when the Child Support Act was going through Parliament so that the CSA could be considered before the Act was passed. The Committee suggested that the key problem would be retrospection.
The Select Committee interim report drew attention to the experience in Australia. The Australians carefully ensured that their legislation was prospective rather than retrospective. It is no surprise that the Australian legislation has not caused the uproar and widespread public concern that have occurred in this country.
Other features of the Australian legislation should also commend themselves to Ministers, and they would do well to introduce them in the House. I refer especially to the possibility of an independent appeal, so that people could understand that they were being dealt with fairly. It is the fundamental unfairness of the legislation that is undoubtedly causing many of the difficulties and the widespread public uproar that has attended the CSA and that has already been referred to by a number of hon. Members in this debate.
For all those reasons, it is most unfortunate that the House is going into recess before we have been presented with proposals which would start to take us back to a sensible, balanced approach to child support, and which would bring relief to many of the families who are now fearful of what the future will bring. Many of them see no hope, and no way in which to get out of their problems.
I shall not dwell on the cases of those who have committed suicide. I am sure that we all realise that there are often a multitude of reasons in such unfortunate cases. However, we must consider those who have left their jobs and those who are saying to their employers, "When the next round of redundancies comes, please include me in, because in that way I can get out of this fearful trap into which I have been forced."
We shall not be able fully to enjoy our recess knowing that tens of thousands of our constituents and fellow citizens face the future with fear and trepidation because of the activities of the Child Support Agency.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the spring recess I shall make four brief points, but before doing so I shall comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). I particularly enjoyed his remarks about Europe in his wide-ranging speech. I agree with every word that he uttered.
If one reads the manifestos of the Conservative party and the two socialist parties—Labour and Alliance—one has no doubt whatever that both want to sell this country out. They want to remove power from this House, and they want a united states of Europe, with one Government. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. If the British people read the Conservative party manifesto, I hope that


they will agree with our patriotic beliefs. I very much hope that Lionel Stanbrook, our excellent candidate, will be elected in our Essex constituency.
The points that I shall raise are the points that raised during the Easter Adjournment motion debate. Sadly, they have not been resolved. I am delighted that the one point which has been resolved—I know that hon. Members will be interested in this—relates to the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations. In the previous debate, I said that the Radio Authority was considering the different bands and how they should be grouped, and I hoped that Mr. Baldwin would choose option 3. I am delighted that option 3 was chosen yesterday; that gives hospital radio broadcasting the opportunity to have its own frequency.
My first point relates to the Commission for the New Towns. I pay a warm tribute to the Commission for the New Towns—the former Development Corporation, the chairman and all the officers. They have done a magnificent job in building Basildon up to the magnificent place that it is today. As the commission withdraws from my constituency over the next 18 months, it is especially important that it bears in mind community assets.
The House well knows that Basildon has the finest shopping centre, certainly in the country and possibly in the world. However, we need to complete the roofing of the remaining part of the shopping centre. It is essential that the commission reaches agreement with the local authority and the Department of the Environment.
The transfer of housing could not take place for many years, because of our previous rotten socialist council. There have been problems with transfers because contractors have, frankly, not fulfilled their original arrangements, and my constituents have been greatly inconvenienced. That must certainly be put right.
My second point—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) will be interested in this—relates to the Fenchurch street railway line. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has mentioned his railway line on a number of occasions. It is well known that the Fenchurch street line offers a disappointing service to our constituents. I support the privatisation of that line.
I am trying to secure a separate debate on the issue, but I have been unlucky in the ballot so far. Time is running out, as British Rail has dropped a bombshell on my constituents and the constituents of my right hon. Friend: the Fenchurch street station will close in July for seven weeks. It has been suggested that our constituents should go on holiday for seven weeks, but that is a little dramatic. In the future, they will have to use the tube from Barking or be transferred to the Liverpool street line.
I and other Essex Members who are affected by this service need to know what British Rail intends to do during the seven weeks while the important engineering works are being carried out.

Mr. Paul Channon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the merits of Basildon, there is no doubt that the train service is not yet one of them? If these vital works are to go on, it is essential that some compensation should be paid to our constituents for the great inconvenience that they will suffer during the seven weeks that the station is closed.

Mr. Amess: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Over the past few years, I have found that, when the House is not sitting, some enormous body seems to allow individual Members of Parliament to respond to the chaos that breaks out. My right hon. Friend is entirely right.
My next point relates to United Artists cabling in my constituency. We all know that there is a lot of rubbish on television from time to time, except when politicians are seen. The idea of cabling was to offer a wider choice. My constituents had no idea whatever that the face of Basildon would be scarred by something that looks like an enormous python. It behoves United Artists to return the pavements of Basildon to their original excellent state. We have a wonderful Conservative council in Basildon; United Artists must put the pavements right.
My final point relates to sex selection. The Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority has decided not to allow sex selection to be authorised in its clinics. One of the owners of the dirty filthy clinic in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) decided that he wanted to choose the sex of his own child, and it turned out to be the wrong gender. That shows that the process used in the clinic does not work. It behoves Parliament to take firm action on this matter, and to make the sex selection technique unlawful.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall not explore the matter of the wrong gender with the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). However, let me be the first to congratulate him on having scored a notable triumph in this debate: he persuaded the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), a former Secretary of State for Transport, to intervene in his speech to admit to the shortcomings of the transport infrastructure which serves the constituency of Basildon.
The hon. Member for Basildon confidently condemned the "two socialist parties" for selling out Britain. I am not sure which two socialist parties he was referring to—perhaps he could write to me about that later. Despite the terrible sell-out which he condemned, he was only able to "hope" to hold the European seat in which his constituency is situated. On the old boundaries, I see that the Conservative party enjoyed a majority of 9,500 in what many people believe was a good year for the Labour party. I accept that the boundaries have changed, and perhaps that is the only reason why the hon. Gentleman can only hope to retain the seat.
A number of important matters have been raised in this debate. The debate was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who is a long-standing champion of people with disabilities. He criticised—he is not the only person to do so—the Government's attitude to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I strongly endorse what he said.
My right hon. Friend said that parliamentary counsel had drafted amendments which were intended not for the Committee but for the Floor of the House. The amendments were intended not to improve the Bill in Committee but to delay the Bill on Report, so that it could never come into law. That is bad enough; it is not the way in which we should proceed in the House.
Initially, Ministers denied that civil servants had been instructed to assist with the subterfuge, and Government Back Benchers denied that they had been helped by civil


servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised an important new point. He referred to Hansard and the phrase which suggested that the Government were
properly using every opportunity to ensure that it"—
the Bill—
reaches the statute book."—[Official Report, 29 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 514.]
If the phrase was intended to be interpreted in that way, it would have involved misleading the House further, because it is perfectly clear to everyone who has followed the issue that the Government did not want the Bill on the statute book, or at least not in the form in which it was presented to the House.
If the Government have concerns about the public expenditure aspect of a Bill, or about the extra burden that could be placed on the private sector, it is right that they should express them in Committee and table amendments in Committee to deal with them. It cannot be right to proceed by subterfuge, which is what they have effectively done in this instance. It looks very much as if they have done the same with other private Members' Bills.
I have twice called for a full debate on the principles involved in this matter, and I ask the Leader of the House again tonight to consider holding such a debate on the Floor of the House, so that we can, I hope, reach a conclusion that will enhance the House's reputation and ensure that we do not have to proceed by subterfuge.
I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in relation to the sad and disgraceful state of affairs in the former Yugoslavia, that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. I think that his remarks found an echo in every part of the House, as did those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe when he spoke about the rights of people with disabilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) managed very easily to follow the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. We all condemn ethnic cleansing and the horrors of warfare in Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.
My hon. Friend also mentioned some procedural matters that are currently under discussion. There is, of course, a willingness in all, or in many, parts of the House to debate the Jopling report and to proceed, I hope, by consensus to implement those parts of it which find favour with the House.
Clearly, the way in which Members of Parliament are expected to work has changed over the years. If we are not here, it is usually not because we are on holiday, but because we have to deal with constituency business and participate in the wider affairs of the nation, not only those parts of the nation's business which are reflected in this debating Chamber.
In debating the Jopling report, we have to get right the balance between the rights of the governing party and those of the Opposition and, separately, that between the interests of the Executive and the House of Commons. I am sure that it is possible to do so and to make progress on the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew the House's attention to a peculiar dispute, which is not of his making, in which he is engaged with the Secretary of State for Health. The Secretary of State said something incorrect about my hon. Friend. The simple way

to deal with the problem is for her to correct the record. I make this simple plea to the Leader of the House: will he get in touch with his right hon. Friend and ask her to set the record straight before the matter acquires a disproportionate significance?
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), with whom I pair when we are allowed to pair—and with whom I do not pair when we are not allowed to pair—mentioned the dependency culture that is developing in Alderley Edge. It is clearly a sign of the times that a dependency culture is developing there, and it should be a matter of concern for the whole House. He pleaded for affordable housing, and those who know Alderley Edge will of course be sympathetic to that plea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) made a powerful contribution to our debate, drawing on his experience as a former director of RE-SOLV, the society for the prevention of solvent abuse. I was not aware that there are three deaths a week from solvent abuse, and my hon. Friend was right to draw this important matter to our attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) continued the two campaigns for which he is rapidly becoming nationally famous. The first, against wheel-clamping cowboys, continues apace, and the second centres on the Child Support Agency. I am sure that his remarks on the latter topic will command support from members of all parties. I have twice asked the Leader of the House at business questions to find time for a debate on the CSA. Many of the concerns raised about its operation are not raised in a political partisan way, and they require a response.
Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) intervened to draw attention to the way in which officials, especially agency officials, are using confidentiality as an excuse to avoid dealing with the inquiries made by Members of Parliament—inquiries often made on behalf of the very person whose confidentiality is supposedly being protected.
If a constituent has asked his Member of Parliament to take up his case, it follows that he has asked his Member of Parliament to represent his interests, and that includes dealing with confidential matters. If a constituent says that his Member of Parliament can have access to confidential information, the Member of Parliament should certainly be provided with it. If he is not, he cannot do his job properly.
I conclude by returning to what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said. He said that all Members of Parliament, especially those in the Opposition parties, could draw on constituency experience when talking about unemployment. Swan Hunter shipyard in Newcastle is still in receivership, and time is running out for it. The Government could save the yard—a smaller, leaner and more efficient operation, but still employing 1,000 people —if they committed the Sir Bedivere warship order to Swan Hunter, and by the stated time of June or July.
If the Lord President wants to send me off happy for the recess, will he draw the plight of the yard to the Prime Minister's attention and secure a decision, preferably one in our favour? It is a matter of life and death for Swan Hunter.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I acknowledge the last remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). It is my ambition, as ever, to send everyone off happy for the Whitsun recess, but I suspect that such a feat is beyond my powers. Indeed, I had some difficulty this afternoon in persuading a number of people that it was desirable to add a day to the Whitsun recess because of the Euro-elections. That is perhaps a good illustration of the difficulties involved in pleasing all the people—or all Members of Parliament—all the time.
This is not a complaint but, with eight minutes to go, I have the usual breathless task of attempting to deal with the problems of the entire world. Inevitably, I shall not be able to do so, so I had better make it clear at the outset that, if I am unable to respond to all hon. Members' comments, they will be passed on to the quarters to which they were sometimes directed and will be taken note of by my colleagues, just as I have taken note of them as they have been made.
Two refrains have echoed throughout the debate. The first concerns the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was mentioned first by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and later in various ways by a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
I think that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe used the word "skulduggery" in relation to what happened on Friday. If the word were really apt—I do not think it is—it would presumably also have to be applied to the actions of, I think, members of his own party who blocked a Bill which was important for the Scottish inshore fishing industry, and which had beneficial fishing and environmental implications, and the fairly wide-ranging Sale and Supply of Goods Bill, which was important to consumers across the country. I simply make those points. I do not think that his word was appropriate and I think that what I have just said should be acknowledged.
That said, I really do not think that I am in a position now, any more than I was at business questions earlier, to add significantly to a number of points that I made on earlier occasions about the various matters that were mentioned this afternoon, although I should like to refer to what the hon. Member for Workington said.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe acknowledged that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, was inquiring into the procedures applying to private Members' Bills, and my right hon. Friend has specifically assured me during the debate that he would very much welcome suggestions that Members care to put to him in writing of such improvements as they feel could be made.
I think that that is the right way now to approach the matter, along with the Government's firm and repeated intention to consult widely on a range of proposals in five important fields relating to disabled people, as a way of making constructive, workable progress now, which is what everyone on both sides of the House wants. That is what we should now concentrate on.
In answer to the hon. Member for Workington's remarks about Madam Speaker's ruling on the privilege issue, I am obviously not in a position to interpret—nor indeed should I attempt to interpret—what was in Madam

Speaker's mind, although I have no reason whatever to suppose that it was considerations of the type that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The clear impression that I have—I think that I had better place this on the record, even at the risk of interpreting Madam Speaker's position—is that she regarded the Minister of State's clear-cut personal statement with an unreserved apology to the House as bringing that specific aspect to an appropriate end. It remains my view that the House should now accept my right hon. Friend's apology in the clear-cut way in which it was given and in the spirit in which it was given. No doubt the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who was here during the hon. Gentleman's remarks, will consider what he said about the privilege issue, as no doubt will Madam Speaker.
The second refrain that has echoed through speeches from both sides of the House was the issue of the Child Support Agency, which came up in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery)—no debate of this type would be complete without my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale—and of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar).
They know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have repeatedly said that they are continuing to keep the operation of that agency under review. It is easy to dismiss those as simply routine words, but I believe them accurately to reflect the spirit in which Ministers are approaching those matters, and I am sure that they will bear in mind the various arguments that my hon. Friends and others have made in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who courteously apologised to me for the fact that he would have to be out of the Chamber for a while, made, in his usual courteous and considered way, his appeal for a debate on Bosnia, and emphasised his continuing views of the importance of that. I continue to take note of what he says, as I always seek to do.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made several important arguments, on which I would quite like to have spent a little time, including some remarks about employment. It is worth placing on record, however, the fact that, in the year to March, the Employment Service placed more than 1.5 million unemployed people in jobs, including the better part of 500,000 who had been out of work for six months or more, and more than 50,000 people with disabilities. Therefore, the notion that the situation is not improving, and that the Government are not putting great effort into it, would be far-fetched indeed.
There is perhaps a further echo—I have just heard it repeated slightly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and it also came from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—about the channel tunnel rail link. I was grateful for some of the things that they said, and less grateful for others. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent that I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has just come into the Chamber, who is extremely puzzled about some of his observations, but has undertaken to study them with care.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made some observations about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which, I have to say, appeared to me to have the flavour of looking at a molehill


through a magnifying glass. I hope that I am not diminishing what he said in those ways, but, however one looks at a molehill, it remains a molehill.

Mr. Spearing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. As he acknowledged, he has already had some comments from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, but I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend reconsiders carefully what she said, because I manifestly accept that he believes it to be a significant and important point and continues to regard it as a matter of anxiety.

Mr. Spearing: indicated assent.

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge that.
I do not think, Madam Speaker, that I shall have time to comment on the other speeches. However, I acknowledge the courteous and thoughtful way in which the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred to my responsibilities in the field of drug abuse and the importance of the solvent aspect, which I will consider with care.
With that, I hope that the House will yield to my blandishments and agree that, at its rising on Thursday 26 May, it adjourns until Tuesday 14 June.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 53.

Division No. 259]
[7.05 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carttiss, Michael


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Congdon, David


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Elletson, Harold


Bright, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butler, Peter
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas





Fenner, Dame Peggy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


French, Douglas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Moss, Malcolm


Gallie, Phil
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garnier, Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Norris, Steve


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hague, William
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Richards, Rod


Hannam, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Harris, David
Robathan, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hawksley, Warren
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hayes, Jerry
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Heald, Oliver
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hendry, Charles
Sims, Roger


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Soames, Nicholas


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Speed, Sir Keith


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Horam, John
Spink, Dr Robert


Howarth, Alan (Straf'rd-on-A)
Spring, Richard


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sproat, Iain


Hunter, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jack, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Stewart, Allan


Jenkin, Bernard
Sweeney, Walter


Jessel, Toby
Sykes, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Key, Robert
Thomason, Roy


Kilfedder, Sir James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Tracey, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Trend, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Trotter, Neville


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Walden, George


Legg, Barry
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Leigh, Edward
Waller, Gary


Lidington, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lightbown, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Ray


Lord, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, David
Wilshire, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Malone, Gerald
Wolfson, Mark


Mans, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Marland, Paul



Marlow, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Mr. Derek Conway.




NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boateng, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard






Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martlew, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Meale, Alan


Coffey, Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Hoeley)


Cohen, Harry
Morley, Elliot


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mullin, Chris


Eagle, Ms Angela
Pickthall, Colin


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Garrett, John
Simpson, Alan


George, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hanson, David
Spellar, John


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Janner, Greville
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Wareing, Robert N


Kilfoyle, Peter
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Livingstone, Ken



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


Macdonald, Calum
Mr. Harry Barnes and


McFall, John
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


McMaster, Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 26th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 14th June.

Council Tax (Sheffield)

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.
On 7 April, the Secretary of State took his capping decisions, adopting principles that broadly gave effect to the provisional criteria that had been set out in the preceding autumn's Budget setting. Sheffield decided to challenge the proposed cap and suggested an alternative. The authority wished to retain its. original budget and submitted a substantial paper setting out its reasons in support of a higher cap.
I met a delegation from Sheffield to hear its case. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) were present at that meeting. We had a constructive discussion and invited Sheffield to respond to further questions—which it did. Before taking his decisions, the Secretary of State carefully considered all the points, including those made and demanded at the meeting.
Sheffield faces difficult decisions, in part because of some budgeting decisions in earlier years that left it with substantial inherited commitments and, in particular, a steep increase in financing costs. Whatever the cost, we have to consider an authority's current circumstances and the case that it presents in support of a higher cap must be considered on its merits. In reaching our decisions, we must take the world as it is and not as we had hoped it would turn out to be.
I am conscious of the fact that Sheffield has to face increased financing payments that are required for the leisure facilities associated with the world student games following a rescheduling of borrowing. No one wishes to see authorities lurching from one crisis to the next. If Sheffield is to succeed in establishing a more secure budgetary position in the longer term, it will need to push ahead strongly with its plans for improved efficiency and better financial management. Sheffield has signalled its intention to pursue further the programme of action that will be needed to put its affairs on a more even footing in the longer term. That will remain essential.
In the light of those and other factors, we must consider the impact that a particular combination of circumstances that faces Sheffield in 1994–95 might have for the provision of local authority services in the city. Having carefully examined all the available information on factors that are relevant to budget setting, our judgment in the circumstances in which the authority finds itself for 1994–95 is that some relaxation in the proposed cap would be justified. Accordingly, we have decided that the final cap for Sheffield should be £381.65 million, a relaxation of £3 million on the amount originally proposed. It is for Sheffield to determine the services to which it wishes to devote the additional resources for which provision is made in the cap.
The final cap represents a reduction on the budget originally set by the authority. None the less, Sheffield will be able to increase its overall budget by 2.6 per cent.


compared with the equivalent figure for 1993–94. Two-adult band D council tax in the city will be about £18 lower than in the previous year.
If the House approves the order, we shall serve a statutory notice on Sheffield formally setting its cap. Within 21 days thereafter, the authority must reduce its budget in line with the cap and set new lower council taxes. It is for Sheffield to decide how to live within its cap. However, we are satisfied that the final cap for Sheffield is reasonable, achievable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the city. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Keith Vaz: We are discussing a very important measure which will affect the lives of everyone who lives in Sheffield. I am delighted to see so many hon. Members who represent the city of Sheffield here for the debate. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
In last year's debate, the Minister said that local authority spending was £1,000 a head. This year, Sheffield city council proposed to spend just £723 a head. Although that is a massive reduction over last year's level, the Government decided that it was too high. How can that possibly be so? The present round of capping comes at a time when the total budget for local authorities has been cut by 1.2 per cent. since last year.
The Labour party is unequivocally opposed to the idea of capping, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spelt out in the debate on 2 February. However, Sheffield's unfortunate situation is nothing more than the tip of the iceberg. Capping was meant to be a temporary measure with a limited use, but the reality is that, in setting budgets, every council now has to undertake the painful process of capping itself. That is done by the Government announcing the levels that they are willing to accept, and, unless a council wants to suffer the direct intervention of the Department of the Environment, it must set its budget within those defined limits. Effectively, that means that each year services have to be cut by local councillors themselves to avoid the bizarre process of direct Government intervention in the setting and regulating of local budgets.
The Government have almost entirely taken control of local authority budgets, to the extent that we now live in the most centralised system in Europe. That is contrary to the view expressed by the Conservative party in its propaganda for the European elections in which it pretends that it is Labour that wants such a system. The Conservative party is determined to turn local government into little more than its agent, forcing it to undertake the unpleasant tasks of central Government and to take the blame for cuts that are due to Conservative party mismanagement.
Since the Government came to power, they have forced through 195 Acts altering the powers of local authorities. That is more than one Act a month since 9 May 1979. Why has this sustained attack continued? It has continued not

for democracy or for the good of the populace but so that Tory paymasters can be given seats on quangos and joint boards.
Quangos now control nearly as much spending as local authorities, but, while councillors are rightly open to public scrutiny and surcharge and possible criminal proceedings, members of quangos are free from even the most basic scrutiny. In the past when irregularities have been found, more often than not the culprit is rewarded with a gong and paid off. The governing ethos of some quangos and board members is "squander and defraud". For every £60 that is wasted by central Government and quangos, local government loses just £1.
The total by which Sheffield city council asked to exceed its new capping limit was £2.5 million. That is less than the amount that the Government have spent this year on mobile phones and pagers. But the money was not to be frittered away: it was to protect vital front-line services. In education, for instance, there will be 400 more pupils for Sheffield council to educate, but, because of the imposed cuts, there will be 80 fewer teachers. Average class sizes are already over 29 in core subjects.
A third of schools will have to cut spending on special needs facilities, even though there is a growing demand. The district auditor has expressed concern at the effect on development and control of cuts in those areas.
Environmental health spending has had to be cut to such an extent that the council is struggling to achieve its statutory duty level. Sheffield suffers from particular problems caused by the construction of the supertram and the way in which that is treated in the standard spending assessment system. The costs associated with the development of that innovative transport programme have not been recognised in the capping limit.
This year, Sheffield suffered a further cut in its budget through the cancelling of the urban programme and the capital receipts holiday. Sheffield succeeded in raising £19.3 million in extra capital receipts during the holiday period between November 1992 and December 1993. But even that was £5.4 million less than it had received through the urban programme. Sheffield city council made a bid for its budget to be maintained at the level at which the council set it. That level was not excessive, merely a rate that would keep the council tax the same as last year.
I congratulate the Minister on his good grace in accepting that the Government's capping limit was wrong and I congratulate the Government on their decision to increase it. However, if the budget cap is to be increased, it should surely be at the level suggested by the council. The fact that that is not the case leads us to wonder whether the Government are merely playing politics and indulging in a face-saving exercise at the expense of people's services in Sheffield.
The city of Sheffield has suffered extremely badly because of the decline in manufacturing. It lost more jobs in 18 months than the total that we shall lose because of the closure of the coal mines. The city had to cope with that calamity virtually without the help of central Government.
Instead of sitting back and resigning itself to its fate, the city has surged forward and set in place a regeneration partnership with the training and enterprise council, the development corporation, the chamber of commerce, the private sector, universities and the health authority. The survival of that partnership, which is a prime example of exactly what the Government are urging local authorities to


do, is threatened because the other partners doubt whether the city council can deliver its side of the partnership because of budgetary constraints.
Yesterday morning, I spoke to the leader of Sheffield city council, Councillor Mike Bower—

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner of the Treasury): He is in the Strangers' Gallery.

Mr. Vaz: As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) rightly points out, he is watching this debate.
Mike Bower has already received telephone calls from ordinary people in Sheffield with messages such as this:
We do not want our council tax decreased. You keep the money and save the money on re-billing. We want the services.
That may sound unbelievable, but the council tax cut that the Government are forcing on Sheffield amounts to a reduction of only £17.15 for a band D property. The Minister will not like being reminded that the average council tax bill in Labour authorities is £40 less than in Conservative authorities. The sum of £17 does not make a substantial difference. The forced cut is accompanied by the re-billing costs of between £100,000 and £140,000. Those funds must be found from the existing budget and the result will be even more cuts.
Those facts are not new to the Minister, but, as some of the representations that he has received from Sheffield show, the list is far more exhaustive than we have time for this evening and I shall not repeat it entirely. None the less, fully aware of those facts, on the recommendation of the Minister, the Secretary of State is cutting Sheffield's budget by £2.5 million. It seems absurd that Sheffield should have a further £2.5 million torn from its budget when the pay award for teachers alone will cost the city an additional £2.8 million.
The Minister has studied the Sheffield budget and, as he told the House, has met delegations from the city. Will he now tell the House and the people of Sheffield where he proposes that the necessary cuts be made? Which services provided by Sheffield city council are surplus to requirements? The Minister will probably reply that it is not for him to dictate how local budgets are allocated. That is precisely our point. It is not for him, the Department of the Environment or central Government to decide how local budgets are set or spent. It is entirely up to the councillors, who operate under the mandate that they receive from local people, to respond to local needs, and they should be left to set their own budgets.
The reaction of the Liberal Democrat party in Sheffield displayed what the Labour party has highlighted for years —it has no policies and no conscience. Locally, the Liberal Democrat party campaigns saying that it cares for local people and local politics. In Sheffield, those scavengers of British politics insisted that the city council did not bother disputing the cap but just accepted the Government's imposed budget.
However, the appropriately named Liberal Democrat leader, Mr. Moore—although he requires less for Sheffield —was quoted in the Yorkshire Post yesterday as saying:
We are not out of the woods yet by any means.
One would think that the words "egg on his face" were invented personally for that gentleman.
If the people of Sheffield had a Liberal Democrat council today—a horrifying prospect—they would be £3 million worse off. That means that ££3 million worth of services to local people would have been cut because of the attitude of the Liberal Democrat party. The Liberals are

beginning to be exposed locally and nationally for what they really are. They care for neither people nor policies; they care only for power for power's sake.
On 5 May, the Conservative party was shown what people feel about its fabrications and failures locally and nationally. The Government and their discredited policies are no longer wanted. Labour is the largest single party at local level because it delivers what it promises. The Labour leadership in Sheffield sets realistic aims and knows how to deliver the services cheaply and efficiently. The Conservative party did not win a single seat in the local elections in Sheffield. The message that local people have sent it is that it is neither wanted nor trusted. That is not surprising when we consider the underhand way in which local authorities are being treated. The Conservative party has been exposed as the "do anything, say anything to get into power" party.
Today, Sheffield city council becomes the latest casualty of the secret war being waged against democracy and representation. Local needs are being superseded because of the Government's failure nationally. [Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but that is the reality in Sheffield. Instead of supporting the civic entrepreneurs of Sheffield and other major towns and cities, helping to make them the best in Britain and able to compete with the best in the world, the Conservative Government are setting about their destruction.
The past 15 years have seen a catalogue of interference by the Government. Year after year, good, effective councils such as Sheffield have been made to suffer increasingly, leaving the people of those cities desperately short of resources and services. How can the difficulties experienced by Sheffield and other cities be squared with the corruption in Westminster and the massive handouts received by Wandsworth from central Government? I remind the Minister that Wandsworth receives 11.6 per cent. of the total non-needs related grant for the whole country, yet it has a population of just 0.5 per cent. that of the whole country. In 1993–94, Wandsworth received 25 per cent. of the council tax transitional relief set aside for each of the 33 London boroughs. Regardless of the gerrymandering that has been occurring for the past 15 years and despite the Government's obvious favouritism for its own councils, Labour councils cost less and provide more.
The leaders of Sheffield city council, past and present, and their excellent Members of Parliament—my hon. Friends the Members for Brightside, for Attercliffe, for Sheffield, Central, for Heeley and for Hillsborough—have fought hard to protect the services which people in Sheffield want. Yet, this year, regardless of local needs, the Government are imposing a stiff cut in funding. That great and dynamic city is now faced with the stark reality of being made to pay for the bankrupt policies of the Government at a cost to those who elect the council.
Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to listen to the representations that he will hear this evening from the hon. Members who represent the people of Sheffield, and to take heed of what the city council has requested by increasing the cap limit by a further £2.5 million.

Mr. Bill Michie: First, I welcome the news that at least £3 million will be handed back to Sheffield where it rightly belongs. I also welcome the


speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and his glowing report of how Sheffield council, in difficult times, has literally picked itself up by the bootstraps. It has stood on its own feet because few of the resources required have been forthcoming from central Government.
The point has been made about the demise of the manufacturing industry and how Sheffield has taken tremendous risks in developing sports facilities. It has taken the criticism and blame for that, but, ultimately, it has changed the whole of the east end area, which otherwise would to this day have remained almost derelict.
I suppose that we should be grateful for the extra £3 million. It will certainly be welcomed in Sheffield and will be well spent. Although the increase is small, it will be regarded as a good housekeeping certificate for Labour-controlled Sheffield city council.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has spoken about important issues and small projects. The sum of £3 million will be worth while when the council is working out what cuts it need not make. Like me, my hon. Friend will want to ensure that the money is spent on education and other crucial areas which affect people's lives. For example, perhaps we can look forward to the provision of public toilets in Hillsborough which, until now, has not had those sorts of basic facilities.

Mr. Michie: I thank my hon. Friend. We could catalogue a great many worthy projects, and my hon. Friend has outlined one or two. There will be a sigh of relief that the £3 million is coming back to Sheffield.

Mrs. Jackson: Certainly for people shopping in Hillsborough.

Mr. Michie: No pun intended, Madam Deputy Speaker. There will be a sigh of relief, not just because some toilets may be opened. Many libraries in Sheffield, which provide an essential service, may be safe for another year and, we hope, for ever.
Before my hon. Friend's intervention, I made the point that Sheffield city council will be seen as a good housekeeping authority. That message will be clear to the people of Sheffield. There is another clear message for the people of Sheffield which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East: it will be clear that the Liberal opposition party in Sheffield was wrong again.
The problem in Sheffield, like that in many other local authorities—I hope that Liberal Democrat Members are listening; if they are, it will be the first time since I have been here—is that, when the squeeze is applied by central Government, the electorate is bound to say that some responsibility must lie with the Conservative Government. But the Liberals go around peddling their wares and convincing the people that it is the fault not just of the central Government, but of the Labour-controlled local authority.
The Labour authority and the central Government are doing what they believe to be right and, without any philosophy or policies of their own, the Liberals come up through the middle. They are getting jam simply by accusing other people of making mistakes. I have always

said that anyone who has never made a mistake has never made anything. I assume that that is why the Liberals claim to have never made a mistake.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Does my hon. Friend recall the challenge that was thrown down by the leader of the Sheffield city council, who is a very honest man? As they say in Yorkshire, he put his money where his mouth is—Conservative Members suggest his "gob", but I am not that crude—wagered £100 and invited anyone to find a deliberate lie or mistake in any of the literature released for the local election campaign. The local Conservative members also put up £100 and the matter was to be adjudicated by the legal department of the Sheffield university.
The Liberal party was the only party in Sheffield which was not prepared to wager £100 on the honesty of its election material—its propaganda. Does not that underline the point made by my hon. Friend that the Liberals peddle one thing in one area and another thing somewhere else? They have been caught out time and again for being "economical with the truth".

Mr. Michie: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend has made. I do not want to spend too much time talking about what will, we hope, be the demise of the Liberal party in Sheffield. The Liberals gained seats in the election by peddling that sort of rubbish, but now they have been found wanting. Labour's Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, said as much. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has returned to the Chamber with some homework or another brief from somewhere.
At the end of the day, the Sheffield local authority has been proved right in taking the risk of coming back to the Government to ask for the money. The Liberals put out a leaflet saying that it was a dead loss; they told the people of Sheffield that the cause was hopeless. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that is hopeless in Sheffield is the Liberal Democrat opposition on the city council.
I do not wish to detain the House for too long, but I want to tell hon. Members about the letters that Members of Parliament from Sheffield have received outlining all sorts of concerns in that area. There are some macro-economic problems in the area, such as the supertram project. But it is a project which will put Sheffield on the map for the next 10, 20, 30 or 50 years as an example of what can be done even in difficult circumstances.
Most hon. Members from the Sheffield area, and certainly the local councillors, have received letters from parents who are concerned about the cuts in secondary education spending this year. There will be more than 400 additional students and about 80 fewer teachers. More than 75 per cent. of year 7 students will be in larger classes for English, maths and science, with an average class size of more than 29 students. Almost 70 per cent. of schools are planning total cuts of more than £100,000 in repairs and maintenance. A third of schools are planning cuts in special needs areas, even though they have more students. More than half of all schools are planning cuts of more than £160,000 or 13 per cent.—in classroom resources. There will also be dramatic cuts in management teams in many schools at a time when there is far more work to do. We are sure that that is happening in primary schools also.
Not just education, but other front-line services have also been affected. People that I talk to in my surgeries and


the people from the city council tell me about the problems and pressures that family and community services face in Sheffield. The Government talk about care in the community, with pressure on hospitals to get people out of hospital beds and back into the community. At the same time, social workers are over-stretched and overwhelmed by the amount of work that they are expected to do with dwindling resources.
I am not talking about over-spending. This is reality of demand that is there for all to see. The Government talk about training; starting that training means making sure that people have decent homes, decent social services and decent education. That is where the training of tomorrow's new technocrats will start. We ignore that fact at our peril. All these services are presently over-stretched.
Our slogan in the last election campaign was "A Fair Deal for Sheffield". We are not asking for special privileges; we are asking to be at least on par with most of the other local authorities. We dare not ask for the sorts of facilities that Wandsworth and Westminster might receive. Of course, it would be very nice—we could have a rate-free holiday for the next four or five years and still increase services.
I received from the House of Commons Library today a breakdown of the amounts of revenue support grant per head paid to Sheffield as compared with Wandsworth and Westminster in 1994–95. The amount of RSG per head payable to Sheffield this year is £372, compared with £507 to Wandsworth and £760 to Westminster. The two London boroughs, but not Sheffield, will also receive a standard spending assessment reduction grant in 1994–95 which will bring their total grant entitlements to £606 per head for Wandsworth and £797 per head for Westminster. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called a fair deal. In no way, shape or form can anyone claim that Wandsworth and Westminster are in dire need of more help from central Government than places such as Sheffield.
All we are asking for is a fair deal. Given a fair deal, we shall make sure—as we shall anyway, whether or not we get trodden on—that Sheffield will overcome the difficulties that it has faced over the past 10 or 15 years and will remain, as it always has been in the past, a proud and prosperous city.

Mr. David Rendel: I was delighted to hear the attacks on the Liberal Democrats from the Labour Benches. I hope that we get some from the Conservative Benches as well. It shows we are winning conclusively when we are attacked by the other two parties in such ferocious terms.
My concerns about the order are to some extent in line with those of the Labour party and centre on the reasons behind the process of capping introduced by the Conservative Government.
I shall start by commenting on what has happened in Sheffield this year in the budget-setting process.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he goes any further, does he agree with what he has heard from the Minister today—that it was totally reasonable that the council expenditure should now be increased by 2.6 per cent. and that it was totally misguided of his party in Sheffield, in the face of thousands of Sheffielders signing the "Fair Deal for

Sheffield" petition urging the council to go for redetermination, to oppose that very sensible cause so strenuously?

Mr. Rendel: If the hon. Lady had allowed me to continue without intervening before I had started my speech, she would have realised that I was about to answer her point.
It was clear at the time of the budget-setting debate in March in Sheffield that it was possible to produce a budget in line with the original capping limit set by the Government, and, indeed, such a budget was proposed by the Liberal Democrat group at the time. Since then, we have had a further election. It might be worth while for Labour Members to ponder on the results of the election before they accuse the people of Sheffield of having agreed with them rather than us about the budget that was set by the Labour-controlled council.
It is important to note, however, that as a result of the whole process of redetermination, the council's costs in Sheffield have risen considerably. The council will need more money in order simply to pay those costs. Our estimate of the cost simply of re-billing is higher than that given in the debate by the Labour party spokesman. Our estimate is more like £300,000. If we add to that the officers' time, the councillors' time and all the extra administration involved in resetting the budget, it is clear that a large proportion of the extra money that Sheffield will be allowed to spend will be entirely wasted on administration. The council is already spending money unnecessarily on administration, as we showed in our budget speech in the Sheffield council budget debate at the time.

Mr. Caborn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where he got those figures? The figures given by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) have come from the city treasurer and the chief executive. Is the hon. Gentleman calling them liars?

Mr. Rendel: Those figures were given in the Liberal Democrat manifesto before the election. I understand that it was confirmed at the time of the budget that those figures were correct and that they were agreed by the officers of Sheffield city council at the time. If Labour Members are quoting the Sheffield city council officers, I do not see why I should not quote them as well.
The addition of all the extra costs, including the costs of administration that, quite unnecessarily, were included in the original budget, has proved that Sheffield will now have to spend a great deal more. Unfortunately, that means that the extra money will not in practice be used to increase the real services to the people of Sheffield, and that is the problem that the people of Sheffield face. The problem with the whole process involves capping.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am, however, puzzled by his arithmetic. As far as I can judge, even on his inflated figures of £300,000, £3 million minus £300,000 leaves £2.7 million? Is that right?

Mr. Caborn: Give or take a few.

Mrs. Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that £2.7 million was a total waste of time?

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Lady was not listening. I said that it was only part of the total costs involved in the redetermination process; it was merely the cost of re-billing. I shall now proceed, as the interruptions are wasting the time of the House.
The real problem involves the capping procedures. Capping procedures have now produced the ridiculous outcome that no fewer than 36 of the 39 county councils listed in the Local Government Chronicle have set their budgets this year precisely at the capping limit. Only three are below it and the only two more than 1 per cent. below the capping limit are Hampshire and West Sussex, which are both now run by the Liberal Democrats. That shows that the whole process of setting budgets has been taken over by central Government. That is now the problem for local government.
The Government have, to a large extent, deformed local democracy. I and my party believe that the people should be allowed to choose the rate at which their local authority taxes are set. The people should be allowed to choose the level of services in their local authorities.
There are, however, some signs that local democracy is beginning to work in Sheffield. Sheffield has become known as the Lambeth of the north. It is wasteful, inefficient and ineffective. It is a council of which the Labour party has every reason to be ashamed. The results of the election on 5 May this year were that the Liberal Democrats gained all three seats that the Tories were defending.
Listening to the Labour party spokesman dealing with that issue a moment ago, one would have thought that Labour had succeeded in winning seats from the Tories. He was telling the Tories how much they were hated by the people of Sheffield and he was right, but in their hatred the people of Sheffield did not choose to turn to the Labour party. When they threw out the Tory councillors, they chose to turn to the Liberal Democrats. Moreover, the Labour party lost no fewer than eight seats to the Liberal Democrats in that contest.
The people of Sheffield have been described today in the House as having voted for the party that is the scavenger of local government. Labour Members would do well to consider their words before they insult the people of Sheffield in that way. Anyone would have thought from the speeches made in the House today that the Labour party, not the Liberal Democrats, had won the local elections in Sheffield.
May I remind the House that the percentages, of votes given to the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats this year were almost identical? If that continues for many more years, needless to say the Liberal Democrats will take over the council in Sheffield and that will be to the people's benefit.
If only the Government would leave the people of Sheffield to decide for themselves what they should spend and if only they would leave Sheffield city council to decide what it should spend, the people would have chosen and I believe that in future the people will choose a Liberal Democrat budget.

Mr. Clive Betts: I begin by saying that by not voting against the order we are in no way implying that we approve of the capping procedures or the principle of capping. There is a straightforward choice—

whether or not to accept an order which increases the spending ability of Sheffield council by £3 million above the current limit. On that basis, we recognise that the Minister has gone some way towards accepting the case put forward by the council for an increase in its spending limit through the redetermination process.
We welcome the Minister's proposals, so far as they go, but we have some difficulty in understanding why the Government have decided to increase the limit by only £3 million rather than by the figure for which we asked. The extra £2 million would have been extremely useful in helping to protect essential services in the city. Why did the Government come up with the figure of £3 million? When I went with a council delegation to meet the Minister a few weeks ago, the council forcefully made the point that even £5 million would not solve all its problems, but it would maintain the council tax at its current level and keep many essential services intact.
It is difficult to understand why the Government have chosen to go only part way towards recognising the council's case. Seemingly, they picked the figure of £3 million out of the air—after all, the matter cannot be that scientific. We do not understand why the Government are forcing a re-billing exercise on the council just to save people £10 a year on the average council tax bill. No one has written to me saying that the Sheffield council tax is too high and should be reduced, but many have written saying that they want their services protected and extra money spent on them and I am sure that my hon. Friends have received similar letters.
Nevertheless, with my council colleagues and officers of the council who attended the meetings with the Ministet, I recognise that he listened to us, asked questions and raised all the appropriate issues. We thank him for that and for the provision of the additional £3 million. Sometimes when I hear Ministers referring to meetings that I have attended I wonder whether we were even in the same room, but in this case the Minister's description of our meetings was fair and accurate. He has also been helpful behind the scenes in considering the rescheduling of the debt on the city's sports facilities and we thank him for his assistance on that.
We have to make the point clearly that the £3 million which has been added to the money that the council can spend means not more money to spend, but less money to be cut from its budget, and the £2 million that the council still has to find is on top of the £27 million of cuts that it is already making in this year's budget.
Despite that, the order is a recognition of three things. The first is that the Government initially set the spending level too low: they got it wrong and were forcing the council to make too large a cut in expenditure on local services.
Secondly, the order is a recognition that when the Government increased the standard spending assessment level in the autumn, they produced a grant increase for the city of £12.5 million but allowed it to spend only £6 million of that. We acknowledge that in the SSA process the Minister recognised the campaign on behalf of our city and other authorities that the SSA process treated us unfairly.
The nonsense is that the capping regime is linked not only to SSAs but to year-on-year expenditure. We thought it extremely unfair that, having acknowledged that in the past our SSA had been too low, the Government increased it in the statement last autumn but then used the budget


year-on-year increases to fix the cap for the current financial year. Those increases were related to last year's budget, which in turn was related to last year's SSA, so this year's increase in SSA was not properly reflected in the council's ability to spend.
At least today's order goes some way towards recognising that the whole process of capping, which tries to work through the SSA system and the year-on-year budget increases, is a nonsense, especially when there are changes to the SSA. That point was made forcefully in the council's submission.
Thirdly, the order is a recognition of the fact that the council's campaign has been successful. It was an extremely effective and well argued campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) referred to the excellent petition—known as the "fair deal for Sheffield" petition—which was signed by thousands of local people, who should be given credit for their part in our success. We should also recognise the very professional job done by my colleagues in the Labour group on the city council and also that of the council officers who put the information together.
Although the formal process somewhat defeated the Conservative group on the council in terms of giving absolute support, we recognise that in the past councillor David Heslop, the leader of the Conservative group, came with a delegation to meet the Minister. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has also given his support and we are aware of his work behind the scenes. We acknowledge that support and wish to put it on the record.
I regret that the same cannot be said for the Liberal Democrats. It is worth putting their attitude clearly on the record: "party political" are the only words that can be used to describe their approach. They saw the possibility of short-term gain and tried to bamboozle people in Sheffield into believing that somehow the campaign was a gamble which was bound to fail and that nothing would come out of it for the city or for the services that it provides. They sold our city short and they should be ashamed of themselves.
I am waiting for the next "Focus" leaflet to be circulated in Sheffield. How will the Liberal Democrats explain the £3 million which the city will now get and which it would not have got if they had been in control of the council? Indeed, I wonder how we can possibly be here discussing redetermination to give the city £3 million pounds when apparently it had already been decided not to do that. Liberal Democrat leaflets which dropped through letter boxes at the recent elections actually said:
The Labour Council's gamble that the government would bail them out of their financial mess has failed. Now your services will be slashed again. The biggest losers will be Sheffield schools. Almost £3 million more will be taken from the schools' budget.
That was nonsense. As a result of this order and the redetermination process, schools' budgets will be protected and there will be no further reductions in their budgets.
Those leaflets were put out by two Liberal Democrat candidates. They did not say that the process was only part way through because, although the Government had turned down our application at the initial stage, the council had the right to appeal; they said that we had failed. Quite frankly, the two people responsible for those leaflets being put through letter boxes lied their way on to Sheffield city council.

Mr. Caborn: Rather than describing Sheffield as the Lambeth of the north, as some have called it, would it not be more accurate to say that if the Liberal Democrats controlled the council it would be the Tower Hamlets of the north?

Mr. Betts: As my hon. Friend says, it is difficult to identify anything that the Liberal Democrats stand for and we never hear any positive proposal from them. We can be certain only that if the time ever came when they had to put forward proposals and were responsible for carrying them out, they would disagree among themselves on what the proposals should be. So far, all that we see from them is how they disagree with every other party on the city council.

Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as many people voted for the Liberal Democrat proposals in this year's budget as voted for the Labour proposals?

Mr. Betts: I confirm that arithmetically the hon. Gentleman is correct. However, I can also confirm that the lies and pretence from the Liberal Democrats and their lack of a clear policy statement deceived some people. I will give the hon. Gentleman one more piece of evidence of that. During the council elections, his colleagues in Sheffield persistently issued the statement that the city council's deferred purchase schemes were responsible for increasing the city's debt and for its current problems. No one would have guessed that the same Liberal Democrat party voted for those very same schemes. It supported the first tranche on 26 November 1985; it supported the second tranche on 21 March 1986; and it supported the third and final tranche on 25 March 1986. Every bit of the deferred purchase was supported by the Liberals, who then used the current problems of the city's budget and tried to blame them on decisions taken in the past for which they had voted in the council chamber. That is a disgrace.
What we are also dealing with today is a recognition, after years of campaigning and trying to get across an understanding of the city's real position, that we had a real case to make. Sheffield is used to a high level of services. People have come to expect them, and there is nothing wrong with that. During the 1970s and 1980s, people outside the city as well as those in it recognised that its education system was first rate. Class sizes were low and people in Sheffield had a good education. Our social services were good. There was a large number of home helps for the population, a large number of old people's homes looking after people in the proper way, and an excellent and well funded library service. Of local authorities, we were among the top two spenders on the arts. We had excellent parks and open spaces. The city was renowned for its good standard of local services.
In the early 1980s, central Government tried, by withdrawal of the rate support grant as it then was, to force the council to cut services. But the council—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was leader of the council at the time, and several of my hon. Friends who are here today were members—put up the rates by 40 per cent. and 30 per cent. in two successive years, and people continued to vote Labour, as they did in many other cities and authorities throughout the country. They exercised their democratic right to say, "We believe that the local council is right to protect local services."
By 1985, the Government had decided that, as their reduction of the rate support grant would not bring about


the reductions in expenditure, they would introduce the capping legislation, and slowly began to exert pressure on the council.
Initially, we produced the deferred purchase arrangements and other ways in which we could sustain services, but ultimately the process of continual attrition by central Government caught up with us.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Before my hon. Friend moves off the point about the standard of services in Sheffield, would he like to add class sizes to the list of excellent standards, and recognise the immense concern that is felt by parents throughout the city at present about the ever-increasing class sizes forced on the council and the education service by the squeeze on school budgets?

Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I was at a meeting the other day with head teachers in my constituency. Every one of them had class sizes of more than 30, and some had up to 38. We have reception class sizes of more than 30. It cannot be right in this day and age to prejudice the future of our young children by such increases. It is a real problem, even though Sheffield is still spending above its SSA on education: we are still spending more than the Government's guidelines.
But Sheffield is not a high spender any more. We are not talking about £3 million more for an authority with a record. The idea that somehow we are the Lambeth of the north is nonsense in terms of management of the authority, as I shall illustrate. It is also nonsense in terms of how much the authority spends per head of population. The SSA for Sheffield is £700 per head. The metropolitan average is £743. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley said, if we had the average we would have £22 million more in SSA and grant. Even the original capped budget for the city is £713 per head—8 per cent. below the metropolitan average.
We are not talking about a city with high council taxes. When Sheffield levied its council tax, it was still £18 below the metropolitan average for the average tax and £3 below for band D. It will be even lower if the order is passed today. Its capped budget was only 1.9 per cent. above its SSA. The vast majority of metropolitan authorities are allowed to spend at a higher level above their SSA than the amount that the Government are allowing for Sheffield.
No one should get the idea that somehow Sheffield has recognised its problems late and is suddenly making quick and ill-thought-out cuts in its budget. The process has been going on since 1987. Very large cuts are taking huge chunks out of our services—£108 million in the past three years alone. Some 5,000 jobs have gone in the city council since 1990, and 7,500 since 1987. The council has not simply cut services: it has looked very hard to find ways to improve efficiency. The disgraceful comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who clearly did not know what he was talking about—he has probably never been to Sheffield and does not understand our city—does not appreciate that the council made £25 million in efficiency savings in the past three years. Last year, Sheffield was voted by people in local government as one of the 12 best-managed local authorities in the country.

Mr. Rendel: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the point by pointing out that, in practice, the

budget proposed by the Liberal Democrats this year showed a great cut in administrative costs and bureaucracy and an increase in spending on education.

Mr. Betts: That is a fascinating bit of information—again, I presume, gleaned from one of the "Focus" leaflets that the hon. Gentleman has been believing when in fact they should carry a health warning. What he said is not true. Sheffield has a very low level of expenditure for central administration, treasury personnel and other departments. It has a record for achieving savings. Let us consider the reductions in the number in the past few years. Since 1990, while the reduction in service departments was 15 per cent., in central departments it was 20 per cent., which shows where the council has targeted its efficiency savings.
As for the Liberal budget, it is difficult to believe that with £5 million less than the Labour group, because the Liberals did not support redetermination, they could have put more into education. In fact, the city treasurer's own figures show that the Liberals propose to spend £2 million less on education in the council budget process this year than the Labour group. That is another of the lies and deceptions put out by the Liberals in Sheffield to try to mislead people.
Sheffield is an efficient council. I quote from the redetermination document and from the district auditor, who said in his last management letter:
the real message emerging from the reviews (value for money) is that the Council and its employees have worked hard to protect the quality of services in the face of sustained budgetary pressures. Indeed, contrary to what might be expected, I have encountered a resilience and determination to protect core services and evidence of some innovative and forward looking developments.
That seems to me to be a very clear statement. I would sooner believe the district auditor, who lives in Sheffield and works there on a daily basis, than the hon. Member for Newbury, who has been passed second-hand and rather wrong information about the real situation in our city.
In the end, efficiency savings can go only so far. We can catalogue a whole list that the council has been through and the various reviews that it has undertaken, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said, in the end core services have been affected. Class sizes have increased, home help charges have been introduced, library opening times have been cut, social services are under pressure, and services such as grass cutting, street cleaning and highway maintenance have all had to suffer because those are the things that the council spends the vast majority of its money on. Let us not try to deceive the public. No party could have made those cuts without hitting core services. To pretend otherwise is to deceive oneself, which is what the Liberals want to do, but more importantly also to deceive the people of Sheffield. Frankly, our people deserve better than that.
The whole process that we have gone through has occasionally been highlighted by one or two grand comparisons. The Prime Minister recently compared Sheffield with the Seychelles. In some ways we were rather flattered by that comparison. If the Prime Minister cannot tell the difference between Sheffield and the Seychelles, that may be one of the reasons why he has problems being Prime Minister.
In terms of debt, Sheffield's revenue budget spend on its past borrowings is 9.3 per cent., which is just about the metropolitan average—surprise, surprise. Then there is the


mainstream debt—the money that is borrowed to build and maintain roads, to build schools, housing and libraries, and old people's homes. When the question was put to the city treasurer at the redetermination meeting about whether it could be reduced—the council has some balances through capital receipts, which it cannot spend and use at present —he pointed out that to pay off the debt rather than keep the balances would cost the council money because the debt that we have was entered into at such favourable rates that the amount that we spend on financing it is less than the Treasury can currently obtain from investing the balances. The officials were apparently satisfied with that explanation.
We have, of course, entered into other arrangements —the phrase "off the balance sheet" is sometimes used to describe such arrangements—on an innovative basis, to try to improve services in our city. We have built more than 2,000 homes through the housing partnership scheme. I stand by that: when the number of homeless families being rehoused is running at up to 2,000 a year, waiting lists are growing and people are desperate for housing, it cannot be wrong to build 2,000 new homes.
Similarly, we entered into the deferred purchase arrangements for the simple reason that we wanted to protect our services from cuts. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats voted with us on all the arrangements at the time; even the Conservative group on the council supported the first £25 million, so it is hardly cleared of responsibility for that decision either.
We entered into the arrangements for new sports and arts facilities in the city. Again, there is a slight difference between my recollection and that of the Liberal Democrats. Labour voted in the city council for spending on all those facilities; the likely yearly cost of paying back the borrowings was clearly laid out in reports from the city treasurer—I shall deal shortly with one of the difficulties that were encountered subsequently—and all the groups on the council voted for the funding and building of those facilities. We were supported by the Conservative opposition, and by Liberal council members.
No one would know that from reading any of the leaflets put out by the Liberals in the local elections—but, of course, the Liberals changed their minds. Halfway through the building of the facilities, they decided that they did not want them and had not really supported them after all. If a Liberal council—as described a few moments ago, in his wildest dreams, by the hon. Member for Newbury—actually existed in Sheffield, we should have the most expensive building site on record. It would be full of half-built facilities that the Liberals had voted to start before changing their minds and failing to support them —again, because they had decided that they could gain some short-term popularity by claiming that they had not voted for the expenditure in the first place. They could then say that Labour was responsible for the increase in class sizes and home help charges, having built facilities that the Liberals had not supported in the first place. That is hypocrisy of the first order; it is time that the Liberals stood up and explained why they have misled people about that issue as well.
I hope that the Minister will eventually deal with one issue related to the SSA—the funding of capital. There is a problem in the methodology. An Audit Commission report produced by Price Waterhouse pointed out that fundamental difficulties were involved in trying to explain how the Government allocated finance for capital through

the SSA system. If its recommendations had been followed, Sheffield would have had an extra £13 million to spend, which would have paid off the borrowings on the games facilities on a yearly basis. That is an interesting figure.
There were problems with those games facilities. The difficulties relating to Hammersmith and Fulham caused the financial markets to react against local authority borrowing at the time. We eventually did a deal for 10 years rather than the original 21, which meant that the council had to find an extra £12 million a year. No political party had supported that in its initial plans. The city treasurer is trying to renegotiate the debt and return to the original terms, and I thank the Minister for the part that he has played in trying to reassure the banks and improve the position.
The supertram scheme, however, is one issue on which the Minister has not been able to reassure us. The present position is nonsensical. Eight million pounds now goes through the books of south Yorkshire's local authorities in revenue support grant and is passed on to the supertram project. Because of the problem with the way in which the cap is calculated—on a year-on-year spending basis—South Yorkshire council, although it need not find the money involved, has other spending displaced because of it. That lowers the level of other services that it provides. I hope that, at some point, the Minister will consider the issue of that disregard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) kindly drew attention from the Front Bench to the problems that Sheffield has experienced in the past. Let me put Sheffield's budget, and its problems over the past 10 years, in the context of the enormous problems experienced by the city as a whole. It has experienced an industrial trauma; it has lost jobs on a massive scale; the heart of its industry has been ripped out. Over 40,000 jobs have been lost in the lower Don valley alone in the space of about five years. Unemployment rose from a figure below the average to 4 per cent. above it.
It is a credit to some of the measures that we have taken that unemployment in Sheffield is now only 2 per cent. above the national average. It is still far too high, but we have done something to recover the position in partnership with the private sector. Many projects have been launched. I have mentioned the housing partnership scheme and the building of new sports facilities; others are combined heat and power, supertram, Sheffcare—an innovative new scheme to look after elderly people in homes—the establishment of the Sheffield economic regeneration committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough when she was a member of the city council and the creation of the liaison group. The current council leader, Mike Bower, established that group, working alongside the development corporation. We did not support the setting up of the corporation, but we agreed to establish a working relationship with it for the benefit of the city.
It is probably no surprise, therefore, that in its redetermination bid the city had the support of the chambers of commerce and trade in Sheffield. They recognised the strong case that we advanced, and the city's willingness to work in partnership.

Mr. Caborn: It had more support from them than from the Liberal party.

Mr. Betts: Indeed. Apparently, the Liberals were the only people who did not support us—or, rather, did not support their city—when it came to the crunch.
We hope that the Minister will examine some of the anomalies that we see in legislation, especially on the capital side. Despite the changes that have been made this year, he still has some way to go. We should not be having this debate tonight; the decision whether Sheffield spends an extra £3 million or an extra million ought to be down to the people of Sheffield, through their elected local representatives. It ought not to be decided by a few Members of Parliament who are present tonight—some of whom represent Sheffield, although most do not. We should return to local democracy and accountability.
Ultimately, we are not even talking about extra money that the Government are going to give Sheffield. We are talking about how much of the people's own money should be spent in council tax. That really ought to be the council's decision. The Minister has shown himself to be a reasonably reasonable man—if that is an acceptable phrase—but he should think about the capping issue. The present position is completely undemocratic. I accept that the SSA system is difficult enough when it is used simply as a grant distribution system, but it is almost impossible to operate it fairly when it is used as a capping system.
People throughout local government in all political parties have argued that capping is unfair and undemocratic. I hope that at some point the Government will recognise that too, and will remove the system so that we need have no more debates like this one.

Mr. Curry: This has been a good-natured, good-tempered debate. I acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who has made strong representations—although he cannot speak in the House because of his position. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was generous enough to acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend had played; he also acknowledged the "Minister for Sheffield", the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who is a vociferous—I know that the House will not find that difficult to believe—advocate of the Sheffield cause.
Today I have dealt with two great Yorkshire cities. This morning I launched the world-class Leeds initiative in the city hall, at the invitation of the city council, in my capacity as "Minister for Leeds". I was delighted that the city council, which had clearly done well out of the SSA system, was able to offer a glass of champagne afterwards. At 9.45 am, however, that was generosity that even I felt unable to accept.
Yesterday I met representatives of the Sheffield and Rotherham chambers of commerce and industry. They explained the partnership schemes in which they were involved, and in particular their hopes to take part in one of the Business Links partnerships. I am therefore conscious of the partnership work being done in both those great Yorkshire cities.
As I listened to the arguments that raged—if that is the right word—between the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and the rest, I wondered whether it was worth my staying at all. I could have taken an early train. The hon. Gentleman was clearly acting as a lightning conductor for

the debate. Liberal Democrat councillors in Sheffield must be terrible people for their wickedness so rapidly to have become apparent. No doubt that argument will continue to rumble.

Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister prepared to agree that what I have said tonight—and perhaps the answer will be given firmly to the Labour party and of course to the Conservative party, too—will be justified if the Liberal Democrats' progress at next year's elections continues as it has this year?

Mr. Curry: I am a great believer, as football managers say—including that of Sheffield United, whose departure from the Premier league I regret—in taking each day as it comes.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) tried hard to be fierce but he did not quite pull it off. I shall not respond to his recapitulation on some of his familiar themes. He knows that I disagree with him. There is a wider debate to be held on those issues, as we both recognise, but it was a nice little cameo performance.
Everybody acknowledges that the procedure has been followed and it has led to a sensible result. We set a cap and lay down a procedure whereby a council has the option of redetermination. I suppose that I could have said, "This is all for the birds; we shall go through the routine but it will not make any difference." I do not do things in that way. I listened to the council and, as its leader will acknowledge —indeed, the hon. Member for Attercliffe had the grace to do so—at our meeting we asked serious and searching questions and asked the council whether it could provide answers that it might not be able to provide immediately. It did so efficiently. It was an effective presentation, which the procedure is designed to achieve. As a result, we reached a reasonable final settlement. In that sense, the war is over—perhaps we shall resume it next year—and I am delighted that that is so.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe raised various specific issues at which he wished me to look. We have had the argument about the supertram in the past. We are reviewing further elements of the SSA system, of which we have given a list to the local authority associations. There is nothing secret about it; the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with those issues. I shall pursue them with the openness, which I hope he will acknowledge, with which I pursued this year's review. The introduction of employment and health indicators this year acknowledged the pressure that the Webber Craig authorities in Sheffield in particular had brought to bear. They advanced a well-argued case, which we accepted, and it appeared in the SSA system.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe rightly said that it is not my job to decide how the council distributes its expenditure. He said that what we have done will enable the education budget to be safeguarded, and I welcome that.
Sheffield acknowledges that it has had its problems, but, as I said in opening, it is not my role to give a history course in how they might have arisen. We must deal with them as they exist. The council's "Agenda for Change" acknowledges that steps must be taken to improve the way in which it deals with its affairs, but few councils are not capable of achieving such changes. I welcome what is happening.
We have reached a reasonable settlement and it has been well received in the city. I acknowledge Labour Members' continuing concerns—I am a Yorkshire Member and have special responsibility for the Yorkshire cities of Leeds, Bradford and Batley. I am aware of the historical problems that those cities inherited, to which I am sympathetic. I shall take forward constructively the issues that must be taken forward, and we will willingly debate the issues more widely. I shall happily receive representations on issues that specifically appertain to Sheffield, as I have in the past.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.

Service Women (Pregnancy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. John Wilkinson: It is a privilege to be able to raise the subject of compensation awards to former service women dismissed from the armed forces on grounds of pregnancy.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will not be surprised that I should return to the subject, which other hon. Members on both sides of the House and I have previously raised in debate on the Floor of the House and which has provoked gradations of press outrage, from headlines such as
All at sea on compensation
in The Daily Telegraph of 31 January 1994 to "What a Barmy Army" in the Daily Record of 12 April 1994 and to a headline that looks as if it might be a report from the European election campaign—
Cash claims open old wounds"—
but is something rather different.
It is an ironic and heartbreaking juxtaposition of two cases. The first is of Abigail Kirby-Harris, a captain in the Royal Army Educational Corps until she was dismissed from the service on becoming pregnant in 1982. She is now suing the Ministry of Defence for more than £500,000 in compensation.
She is likely to get it",
says The Sunday Telegraph of 17 April 1994.
Michael Cooke was among the top Royal Air Force fighter pilots of his generation and a member of the aerobatic team that preceded the Red Arrows. During a rehearsal for the 1963 Paris air show, his Lightning F1 was involved in a mid-air collision and his ejector seat failed to work properly, leaving him paralysed from the neck down. He was 25. Before that, the Royal Air Force had used his photograph on its recruitment advertisements, but he did not get any compensation; nor was he able to claim any. As he observed,
I was paralysed and got nothing. She's getting £½m for her normal function.
The Government are disbursing taxpayers' money to meet compensation awards, many of which have run to five-figure sums, to compensate former service women for loss of earnings and career prospects upon dismissal from the armed forces by virtue of pregnancy—for not being able to fulfil the military duties for which they were trained, even though they knew when they signed up that dismissal without compensation would be the consequence of pregnancy during service.
By their own estimation, the Government's total bill for compensation for those women eligible could run to £30 million. The Library research paper, 94/27 of 11 February 1994, entitled "Compensation for Discrimination", stated:
The total bill could turn out to be £100 million rather than the £30 million estimates.
The Ministry of Defence will appeal against the size of these awards to the employment appeals tribunal, but the list of awards cited in the Library research document to have been granted to ex-service women between the crucial interpretation by the European Court of Justice in August 1993 in the case of Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority and the research document's compilation in February 1994 suggest that,


unless action is taken, well over £100 million of taxpayers' money will have been wasted by the time all the claims have been settled.
It is not as if the women are unfit or have received an injury in the course of their military duties that might have precluded them from continued service. They have merely proved the physiological fact that if they are old enough to bear arms they are usually of an age to bear children. They have been rewarded, in their relative youth, with compensation awards far larger than the gratuity or terminal grant that they could expect at the end of their service.
Estimates of the number of women dismissed from the armed forces between the relevant dates of 1978 and 1990 vary, but The Independent of 6 April 1994 said that the maximum figure would appear to be 5,700. Of those, 2,000 women have settled their claims and about 2,500 claims against the Ministry of Defence remain outstanding.
The Times reported on 2 February 1994 that about 1,000 claims had yet to be made, citing the views of the armed forces pregnancy dismissal group, which calculated a high estimate of the total cost of £200 million. That correlates with the figures that I mentioned from research paper 94/27, for the period August 1993 to February 1994. The figures for named individuals are as follows: £200,000 for Fiona Hadley; £172,000 for Nichola Cannock; £133,000 and a pension entitlement for Patricia Prior; £54,000 for Deborah Miller; £62,000 for Jacqueline Peel; £46,550 for Esther Dill; £24,000 for Angela Howell; £17,000 for Kim Castledine; and £22,000 for Jacqui Thornber.
Taken into account are not only loss of potential earnings but pension rights, and back interest on notional lost earnings. Millions of men and women would dearly love to have their anticipated pension entitlements commuted into a generous lump sum payment made in the prime of life, as has been the case with those ex-service women who were dismissed on grounds of pregnancy.
Often, when apparently inexplicable nonsense—and expensive nonsense at that—is being perpetrated by Her Majesty's Government's Departments of State, the malign and meddlesome influence of European Community institutions is at its root. So it is in that notorious abuse of compensation provisions by ex-service women. Section 85(4) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 rightly excludes the armed forces, presumably on the grounds that all who attest their loyalty to the Queen to serve in the defence of the realm in Her Majesty's armed forces have to be fit for whatever duty, wherever they are assigned, at the behest of the Crown. But that exclusion has been overturned at the behest of the European Community, although an industrial tribunal is hardly an appropriate body to adjudicate loss of employment compensation for those subject to military discipline.
How did that extraordinary and remarkably expensive aberration occur? In early 1990 two members of the forces nursing service who had been dismissed on pregnancy grounds initiated legal proceedings against the Ministry of Defence. The Equal Opportunities Commission argued on their behalf that the EC equal treatment directive overrides that exclusion in British law, so the MOD policy to dismiss pregnant women from Her Majesty's armed forces was in direct breach of the directive.
It is often stated—it was most recently stated from the Treasury Bench during the passage of the Bill to ratify the treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht—that the United Kingdom has retained national sovereignty in matters of defence. Yet nothing could be more fundamental to national defence than service manpower policy—for example, whether a country has conscription, or large reserves, what proportion of its armed forces are women, the terms and conditions of employment of people in the armed forces, and so on. We judge a nation's worth in part by the quality of its armed forces.
Yet when the case was due to start in the High Court on 16 December 1991, the Ministry of Defence conceded the case and agreed to pay the two women compensation of £15,000 and £10,000. At a stroke, the MOD had conceded the primacy of a European Community directive over British law on service personnel, and in the process had extended the competence of industrial employment tribunals to matters relating to military terms and conditions of service, and discipline.
Then the European Court of Justice set aside, as contrary to European law, the old upper limit of £11,000 in discrimination cases. The sky became the limit for retrospective compensation awards for ex-service women from the entry into force of the European Community directive in 1978 until August 1990, when the Ministry of Defence finally instituted a sensible policy of maternity leave for service women who became pregnant, and flexibility of employment for service women in those circumstances.
In conclusion, the whole sorry, expensive and ridiculous episode perhaps deserves no better final commentary than the measured observations of The Daily Telegraph's editorial entitled, "At sea on compensation", dated 31 January 1994. The Daily Telegraph is not a paper prone to hyperbole and exaggeration, but the editorial finishes with the following observation:
Few civilians could claim anything remotely similar. Yet ministers and officials seem mesmerised by the vast cascade of wealth they have released. Only now has the Ministry of Defence decided to appeal against the largest settlements, and they are still fighting shy of contesting the legal grounds on which compensation is being granted. They should shake themselves out of their trance, before the situation gets further out of hand.
The mere fact that a manifest abuse of the public purse has been condoned for so long does not justify its perpetuation any longer.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing an Adjournment debate on a subject that has aroused considerable interest and, unfortunately, an element of ill-informed speculation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Back-Bench defence committee and for his lifelong commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom. I am also grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government's position on a difficult issue.
I must admit that I am surprised that no Labour or Liberal Democrat Members are present on an issue of such great importance. Not only is the debate important, but it is on a matter that those parties have raised from time to time.
I readily admit that the subject has caused great concern and feelings of unfairness among many people who feel


that the size of the payments are out of all proportion, and in stark contrast to the levels of compensation paid in many cases of serious injury and the like. Indeed, my hon. Friend graphically illustrated that argument. I completely understand those feelings, but we must also consider the legal rights of the women involved.
It may be helpful, therefore, if I begin by explaining the background to the compensation payments currently being made by my Department to women who were dismissed from the armed forces when they became pregnant.
Until August 1990, it was the Department's policy to discharge service women who became pregnant. As know hon. Members will be aware, service in the armed forces sometimes places much greater demands on individuals than civilian employment. Personnel in the armed forces are regarded as being on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week and can be required to serve anywhere in the world at any time, often at short notice.
Because of the special conditions of service life, it was considered at the time that service women who became pregnant would be unable to meet their service commitments and that they should therefore be released. If service women wished to return to duty after the birth of a child, they could apply to re-enter. They did not, however, have a right to return.
In 1990 the policy was challenged by two former service women who, with the support of the Equal Opportunities Commission, sought judicial review of the decision to discharge them on grounds of pregnancy. They cited the EC equal treatment directive as the legal basis for their case. Up to that time, the policy of compulsorily discharging service women on pregnancy had been considered lawful by virtue of the exemption for the armed forces in section 85(4) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. However, new legal advice given to the Department in connection with the former service women's legal challenge was that the directive applied to the armed forces and displaced the exemption granted in the Sex Discrimination Act.
As a result of that advice, my Department immediately changed its policy so that service women who became pregnant did not have to leave the services. They were given the right to return to work after a period of unpaid leave, should they wish to do so, in line with the statutory provisions for civilian women. In fact, as part of the widening of women's career opportunities, the Ministry of Defence was already considering the introduction of maternity leave to make it easier for service women to resume their careers after having a child. The unpaid leave scheme was enhanced in December 1991 to match that for female civil servants and now offers 48 weeks leave, of which 14 weeks is on full pay.
The case brought by the two former service women was heard in the High Court in December 1991. The court ruled that the former policy of discharging service women on pregnancy was discriminatory and a breach of the equal treatment directive. The Ministry of Defence agreed an out-of-court settlement with both women and accepted liability to pay compensation to other women dismissed from the services on grounds of pregnancy between 9 August 1978—that was when the equal treatment directive came into force—and August 1990, when the policy of compulsorily discharging pregnant women was discontinued.
My Department estimates that around 5,700 women left the services on pregnancy during that period and, so far,

claims for compensation have been received from nearly 4,000 of them. The offers of compensation made by my Department are based on the loss of earnings and pension benefits from the date of discharge to the day before confinement, plus a sum for injury to feelings. Since service women were not stopped from applying to re-enlist after the birth of a child, we would normally only consider paying compensation for post-confinement loss of earnings and pension benefits where a woman has applied to re-enlist, but was turned down.

Mr. Wilkinson: I intervene merely to define what my hon. Friend meant by "injury to feelings", or words to that effect. Surely pregnancy in most circumstances is a cause for rejoicing.

Mr. Hanley: I must admit to my hon. Friend that one of the matters that has been brought—obviously—to the attention of the newspapers was that people's offence at the size of the payments had been accentuated by the fact that many of them felt that there was no real loss involved to the particular service woman becoming pregnant and that perhaps the service woman now had a happy family life, with healthy children and a future ahead of her. However, the injury to such service women is that of being forbidden from carrying out their chosen careers, which was regarded in law as being discriminatory. In other words, the injury was the legal injury of being required to leave the services when it was determined that the directive applied to them. In other words, the injury to feelings is more that of being dismissed from their chosen career, rather than that of having a happy and healthy family.
As I say, it is a legal matter, but before the Ministry of Defence continued with its current policy, it began to issue offers of compensation back in September 1992 through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—known as ACAS—which ensured that claimants received independent advice before deciding whether to accept legally binding settlements. Any claimant who is dissatisfied, however, with the amount of compensation offered by the Department has the right in law to apply to an industrial tribunal for settlement of her claim.
In fact, many of the claimants sought postponement of their cases, pending a judgment by the European Court of Justice in the case of Miss Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority. That was a sex discrimination case totally unrelated to the MOD claims. However, it had a significant implication for the level of compensation payable in such cases.
I shall at this point go into some of the details of that case to explain its significance for our service women's claims.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Before my hon. Friend goes into the detail of the cases, will he tell the House whether, when the Labour Government in 1978 accepted the European directive, they knew or ought to have known that it would result in such massive claims against the public purse?

Mr. Hanley: I readily admit to my hon. Friend that a previous Government adhered to the directive, but I do not believe that they knew the level that the claims would reach because of a subsequent declaration—in fact, the very one to which I am now referring—in the Miss Marshall case. I shall explain to my hon. Friend exactly why.
Between 29 December 1975, when the Sex Discrimination Act came into effect, and 22 November last year, there was an upper limit on the amount of compensation that an industrial tribunal could award by way of compensation for sex discrimination. That upper limit was increased from time to time and, in June last year, it was increased from £10,000 to £11,000.
The two issues before the European Court of Justice in Miss Marshall's case were whether an upper limit on compensation for sex discrimination was compatible with the requirements of the equal treatment directive and whether the directive requires that industrial tribunals should have the power to award interest—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood correctly alluded—running from the date of dismissal, should it consider the award of interest appropriate.
In August 1993, the European Court of Justice announced its decision in favour of Miss Marshall. That meant that the upper limit on compensation awardable by industrial tribunals in sex discrimination cases would have to be abolished and that interest could be payable from the date of the discrimination Act. Interest is invariably awarded by industrial tribunals, which can have the effect, because of the distance between the date and the discrimination Act and the award, of doubling the size of payments.
In other words, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), during the previous Labour Government, an upper limit was adhered to for acts of discrimination. That has since been removed and that is the reason for the large amounts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred.
The Government acted subsequently to amend United Kingdom legislation to bring it into line with the court's interpretation of the equal treatment directive. On 16 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment laid new regulations before the House, including the method of calculating interest payable. Those were approved by the House and came into effect on 22 November. My Department duly recalculated the outstanding offers of compensation for dismissed service women in line with the new regulations and issued revised offers to claimants. As at 19 May, 2,150 claims had been settled at a cost of £15.5 million.
The high awards, which have attracted so much publicity and which were referred to tonight, were made by industrial tribunals. I need hardly tell the House that those are independent judicial bodies, and that their constitution and rules of procedure are governed by UK statute. Their decisions are, of course, legally binding and my Department is obliged to comply with them.
I acknowledge the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and my other hon. Friends who are here today about the substantial sums of public money which have to be found to meet the compensation awards and which come out of the defence budget. However, it is not possible at this stage to forecast the total cost to my Department of meeting the claims for compensation. We do not know how many claimants will reject the revised offers and apply to industrial tribunals for settlement of their claims. Nor can we anticipate the level of compensation that future tribunals will award. I emphasise to my hon. Friends that those awards have been

made by independent judicial bodies exercising powers granted them by Parliament and applying the relevant law, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.
It is my Department's policy on post-confinement compensation that is disputed by many claimants because they maintain that they did not know that they could apply to re-enter the services.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for not having been here for the whole of the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister. Is he willing to venture an opinion on whether either the statute or the courts' interpretation ought, in the interests of justice, to be altered in future? A great many of all our constituents think that it is quite wrong that a judgment should by made by the courts on a statute that is so manifestly distorted in favour of making it easy for a woman in the armed services simply to decide to have a child and then to get whopping great compensation from her fellow taxpayers.

Mr. Hanley: As my hon. Friend may know, the Ministry changed its policy in 1990, so there is no possibility of any woman now deciding to join the armed forces and then deliberately to get pregnant so that she can not only have her child, but eat a lot of cake afterwards. The simple reason for that is that we now treat service women on exactly the same basis as we treat service men. In other words, there is no discrimination on the ground of sex. Women are deployed equally as men are in the armed forces, except in a very few instances, such as submarines and minesweepers, as my hon. Friend will know, because of accommodation problems. There is, therefore, no possibility that women can set out on such a course of action at the expense of the Ministry of Defence or, indeed, the taxpayer.

Mr. Jessel: They could before?

Mr. Hanley: I have no evidence that any woman tried to secure vast payments in the way that my hon. Friend intimates, inasmuch as the development of the law was very much after the event. I do not believe, especially with the upper limit of £11,000 on tribunals, which was increased from £10,000 only last year, that there was a vast fortune ready to be planned in the circumstances. My hon. Friend cannot, therefore, feel that financial planning was as much in the women's minds as family planning perhaps should have been.
If industrial tribunals accept claimants' arguments that they would have returned to duty and completed their commissions or engagements had they known they could do so, the result can be large awards, particularly when it is accepted by tribunals that claimants would have reached a senior rank.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Do the Government have any right of appeal against the amounts being paid?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I shall very soon cover it fully.
It may be accepted by tribunals that claimants might have reached a senior rank. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to examples of women who might have achieved a very senior rank. Senior rank can give extra money, I am afraid, to the settlement. Interest


can also have a large effect. Although appeals against tribunals' decisions cannot be made simply on the amount of compensation awarded, it is possible to appeal on points of law. Such appeals are made to the employment appeals tribunal and beyond that to the Court of Appeal. I have made it quite clear on previous occasions, and will do so again, that my Department will appeal against tribunals' decisions wherever it believes that it has good grounds for doing so. Indeed, appeals have already been lodged with the employment appeals tribunal in a number of cases and are to be heard in July. We hope that the EAT will give guidance to industrial tribunals on the relevant criteria to be taken into account in assessing compensation.
The Government gave careful consideration to the court's judgment in the Marshall case and amended the United Kingdom law accordingly. We now accept that the armed forces exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act was inconsistent with the equal treatment directive that was agreed in 1976. Furthermore, we believe that the directive fully meets all the subsidiarity criteria. In passing, I refute

any suggestions of compulsory or pressurised abortions —or vasectomies, for that matter—as all of our service medical staff and other staff must adhere to the law.
In conclusion, I make it perfectly clear to the House that it is wrong to suggest that the European Court of Justice ordered the United Kingdom to pay unlimited compensation or specified the levels of compensation payable in sex discrimination cases. What it did do was to rule that individuals must be adequately compensated and there could not be an upper limit on the amount of compensation payable. We have accepted that ruling. However, I believe that I have now made it clear that the levels of compensation are a matter for the independent industrial tribunals to decide on the basis of the information put to them. I recognise that this matter has caused great offence. As I have also said, where my Department believes that there are good grounds, we will appeal.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o'clock.